A Deweyan Perspective on Science Education: Constructivism, Experience, and Why We Learn Science

This paper investigates a Deweyan interpretation of constructivism as a means of developing a rationale for teaching science. The paper provides a review of constructivism from recent science education literature, along with some relevant criticisms. The paper then presents an interpretation of Dewey’s formulation of the role of knowing and scientific concepts as tools for integrating and transforming experience, based primarily on Experience and Nature and The Quest for Certainty, arguing that a Deweyan version of constructivism improves upon recent cognitivist versions of constructivism, while providing a general justification for why ideas in science are worth teaching and learning.     

Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda

This article focuses on (a) theoretical underpinnings of social constructivism and multicultural education and (b) aspects of social constructivism that can provide frameworks for research in multicultural science education. According to the author, multicultural science education is “a field of inquiry with constructs, methodologies, and processes aimed at providing equitable opportunities for all students to learn quality science.” Multicultural science education research continues to be influenced by class, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender, and different lifestyles; however, another appropriate epistemology for this area of research is social constructivism. The essence of social constructivism and its implications for multicultural science education research includes an understanding of whatever realities might be constructed by individuals from various cultural groups and how these realities can be reconstituted, if necessary, to include a scientific reality. Hence, multicultural science education should be a field of study in which many science education researchers are generating new knowledge. The author strives to persuade other researchers to expand their research and teaching efforts into multicultural science education, a blending of social constructivism with multicultural science education. This blending is illustrated in the final section of this article. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Introductory Comments on Philosophy and Constructivism in Science Education

This article indicates something of the enormous influence of constructivism on contemporary science education. The article distinguishes educational constructivism (that has its origins in theories of children's learning), from constructivism in the philosophy of science (usually associated with instrumentalist views of scientific theory), and from constructivism in the sociology of science (of which the Edinburgh Strong Programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge is the best known example). It notes the expansion of educational constructivism from initial considerations of how children come to learn, to views about epistemology, educational theory, ethics, and the cognitive claims of science. From the learning-theory beginnings of constructivism, and at each stage of its growth, philosophical questions arise that deserve the attention of educators. Among other things, the article identifies some theoretical problems concerning constructivist teaching of the content of science.     

ERNST VON GLASERSFELD'S RADICAL CONSTRUCTIVISM AND TRUTH AS DISCLOSURE

In this essay Clarence Joldersma explores radical constructivism through the work of its most well‐known advocate, Ernst von Glasersfeld, who combines a sophisticated philosophical discussion of knowledge and truth with educational practices. Joldersma uses Joseph Rouse's work in philosophy of science to criticize the antirealism inherent in radical constructivism, emphasizing that Rouse's Heideggerian critique differs from the standard realist defense of modernist epistemology. Next, Joldersma develops an alternative conception of truth, in terms of disclosure, based on Lambert Zuidervaart's work in aesthetics. Joldersma concludes by arguing that this notion of truth avoids the pitfalls of both realism and antirealism, giving educational theorists a way forward to accept some of the major insights of constructivism with respect to learning and teaching without having to relinquish a robust notion of truth.     

论基础科学课程与教学中"科学探究"的价值取向

“科学探究”或探究式科学教学是当前国际基础科学教学改革的重要话语之一。但是,20世纪60年代提倡的“科学探究”与90年代以来提倡的“科学探究”在价值取向上有重要区别:前者基于归纳主义或逻辑实证主义的科学观,后者基于建构主义的科学观。尽管美国一些重要的科学教育政策文献中不见“建构主义”一词,但其理论基础无疑是建构主义学习理论。     

Whither constructivism?—A chemistry teachers’ perspective

Constructivism in science education has been the subject of considerable debate in the science education literature. The purpose of this study was to facilitate chemistry teachers’ understanding that the tentative nature of scientific knowledge leads to the coexistence and rivalries among different forms of constructivism in science education. The study is based on 17 in-service teachers who had registered for a 11-week course on ‘Epistemology of Science Teaching’ as part of their Master's degree program. The course is based on 17 readings drawing on nature of science and a critical evaluation of constructivism. Course activities included written reports, classroom discussions based on participants’ presentations and written exams. Based on the results obtained, it is plausible to suggest that participant teachers experienced the following transitions leading to greater understanding, as they acquired experience with respect to constructivism: (a) Active participation of students as a pre-requisite for change; (b) Different forms of constructivism represent competing and conflicting interpretations of progress in science; (c) Acceptance of the present state of constructivism as a Kuhnian paradigm; (d) Social constructivism as the preferred form of constructivism; (e) Critical appraisal of social constructivism; (f) Despite its popularity, social constructivism does not constitute a Kuhnian paradigm (due to controversies, there is no consensus in the science education community); (g) Contradictions faced by constructivism in science education provide the base for its advance and evolution towards more progressive forms, and hence the need to consider, whither constructivism?     

Constructivism in Science and Science Education: A Philosophical Critique

This paper argues that constructivist science education works with an unsatisfactory account of knowledge which affects both its account of the nature of science and of science education. The paper begins with a brief survey of realism and anti-realism in science and the varieties of constructivism that can be found. In the second section the important conception of knowledge and teaching that Plato develops in the Meno is contrasted with constructivism. The section ends with an account of the contribution that Vico (as understood by constructivists), Kant and Piaget have made to constructivist doctrines. Section three is devoted to a critique of the theory of knowledge and the anti-realism of von Glaserfeld. The final section considers the connection, or lack of it, between the constructivist view of science and knowledge and the teaching of science.     

试论建构主义对音乐课堂的影响

在当今世界科学教育改革中,建构主义已经成为指导科学教学的主要理论。本文阐述了建构主义理论对音乐教学、音乐学习及评价方面的影响,并对其在实际教学中的重要作用进行了分析。     

What is the relationship between social constructivism and Piagetian constructivism? An analysis of the characteristics of the ideas within both theories

For twenty years, social constructivism has been a paradigm in science teaching and not an easy bedfellow for piagetian constructivism, even though both have had the same thing in mind… a study of the learner. For this reason we attempt to find connections and bridges between them so that both may be enriched, to the benefit of science teaching.     

Teachers’ Concerns about Implementing Teaching/Learning Approaches Informed by Constructivism

Changing emphases in science education during the past decade have placed teaching/learning approaches informed by constructivism on the ascendancy. However, implementing these approaches, which are not the usual classroom practices for many teachers, is likely to create difficulties. In this study, these difficulties were examined in terms of concerns expressed by a group of eight science teachers in one school prior to, and upon completion of, an 18‐month inservice programme specifically aimed at promoting teaching/learning approaches informed by constructivism. Teachers’ initial concerns were related to how the new approaches would affect their own teaching and how they could fulfil their responsibilities for completing the required syllabus. Post‐inservice concerns changed to a focus on how to maximise student involvement in science learning and to the consequences of their teaching. This paper concludes with implications for teacher educators who wish to use teachers’ concerns as indicators of difficulties encountered by teachers implementing new teaching/learning approaches.     

Constructivism: Defense or a Continual Critical Appraisal A Response to Gil-Pérez et al.

This commentary is a critical appraisal of Gil-Pérez et al.'s (2002) conceptualization of constructivism. It is argued that the following aspects of their presentation are problematic: (a) Although the role of controversy is recognized, the authors implicitly subscribe to a Kuhnian perspective of `normal' science; (b) Authors fail to recognize the importance of von Glasersfeld's contribution to the understanding of constructivism in science education; (c) The fact that it is not possible to implement a constructivist pedagogy without a constructivist epistemology has been ignored; and (d) Failure to recognize that the metaphor of the `student as a developing scientist' facilitates teaching strategies as students are confronted with alternative/rival/conflicting ideas. Finally, we have shown that constructivism in science education is going through a process of continual critical appraisals.     

Von Glaserfeld‘s Radical Constructivism: A Critical Review

We explore Ernst von Glaserfelds radical constructivism, its criticisms, and our own thoughts on what it promises for the reform of science and mathematics teaching. Our investigation reveals that many criticisms of radical constructivism are unwarranted; nevertheless, in its current cognitivist form radical constructivism may be insufficient to empower teachers to overcome objectivist cultural traditions. Teachers need to be empowered with rich understandings of philosophies of science and mathematics that endorse relativist epistemologies; for without such they are unlikely to be prepared to reconstruct their pedagogical practices. More importantly, however, is a need for a powerful social epistemology to serve as a referent for regenerating the culture of science education. We recommend blending radical constructivism with Habermas theory of communicative action to provide science teachers with a moral imperative for adopting a constructivist epistemology.     

Kay‐Shuttleworth and the training of teachers for pauper schools

Abstract

Radical constructivism has had a major influence on present‐day education, especially in the teaching of science and mathematics. The article provides an epistemological profile of constructivism and considers its strengths and weaknesses from the standpoint of its educational implications. It is argued that there are two central problems with constructivism: anti‐realism and individualism which, in turn, lead to difficulties associated with idealism and relativism which, together, prove fatal for the theory.     

The construction and use of a metaphor for science teaching

While constructivism has emerged as a major reform in science education from the last decade, wide-spread adoption of constructivist practices in school laboratories and classrooms is yet to be achieved. If constructivist approaches are to be utilised more widely, teachers will need to accept a more active and constructivist role in their own pedagogical learning. One experienced junior science teacher was able to implement constructivist approaches in her classroom by using a personally constructed metaphor to guide her practice. Specializations: science education, teaching of thinking, professional development. Specializations: constructivism, professional development.     

大学理科课程探究式教学的理论阐释与实践探索——以大学物理课程为例

科学的本质与教育的本质统一于科学探究。探究式教学是注重学生自主探究和自我实现的教学方式,是由高级需要所驱动的。这种教学模式符合学习型人假设的内在要求。建构主义的知识观和学习观包括建构主义学习理论的学生观,是探究式教学的理论基础。在探究式教学的具体实践中,尤其强调在具体情境中提出问题、提供观测实验的证据,并对证据做出科学解释。     

Constructivism and empiricism: An incomplete divorce

The paper outlines the significant influence of constructivism in contemporary science and mathematics education, and emphasises the central role that epistemology plays in constructivist theory and practice. It is claimed that despite the anti-empiricism of much constructivist writing, in most forms its epistemology is nevertheless firmly empiricist. In particular it is subject-centered and experience-based. It is argued that its relativist, if not skeptical conclusions, only follow given these empiricist assumptions. Further it is suggested that such assumptions belong to Aristotelian science, and were effectively overthrown with the modern science of Galileo and Newton. Thus constructivism cannot provide understanding of post-Aristotelian science. Specializations: history, philosophy and science teaching.     

HPS教育研究综述

HPS科学教育是近年来西方一些科学教育专家以建构主义为指导思想,倡导的一种新的科学教育的课程与教学模式,是科学教育的一个非常重要而且可行的途径,是国际科学教育研究中一个前沿性课题,是科学教育的发展趋势。深入研究HPS教育有助于推动我国科学教育的改革,对其进行综述有助于HPS科学教育研究的进一步深化。     

Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching

Critics praise applications of constructivism in science pedagogy, but they argue that constructivism is severely impaired and hopelessly flawed as a theory. Flawed theory should not be employed to explain innovative practice. My purposes are twofold. First and foremost, I present a case to support my own and others' assertions that constructivism is a sound theory with which to explain the practice of science and science pedagogy. In accomplishing my primary purpose, I also fulfill my secondary purpose, to respond to constructivism's critics. My argument is presented in three parts. In Part 1, I delineate the epistemological ground with a brief synopsis of the purpose, nature, and orientation of radical and social constructivism. I then offer a synthesis of their foundations. In Part 2, I offer a constructivist account of five long-standing epistemological issues, including truth, solipsism, experience, instrumentalism, and relativity. Truth is the center piece of the argument, and I show how constructivism avoids the root paradox by embracing truth as coherence. Next, constructivism is shown to be a rejection of solipsism. Then, an account of experience based in neurophysiological theory, emergent properties, and the brain as a parallel data-processing organ is provided to support constructivism's inside-out view of experience, in which meaning making occurs within individual minds and in communities of individuals. In the final segment of Part 2, I present a constructivist account of relativity which focuses on physicists' acceptance of relativity, its translation to constructivist epistemology, and constructivists' request for silence regarding ontology. Response to critics' objections are also presented at appropriate points throughout Part 2. In the third part, I present constructivism as an epistemological foundation for a cybernetic perspective of knowing. I then summarize the value of constructivism in explaining and interpreting the practice of science and science pedagogy. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 35: 501–520, 1998.     

美国小学科学教学的特色及启示

美国十分重视小学科学的教学改革,改革发展至今呈现出了别具一格的新特点．主要体现为以建构主义为基础的教学理念、以贴近生活为原则的教学内容、以智力技能为重点的教学过程、以开放探究为中心的教学方法、以公共多元为宗旨的教学资源。其特色与经验启示我们．要高度重视小学科学教学的立法保障,拓展延伸小学科学教学的内容体系,鼓励加强小学科学教学的活动探究,合理进行小学科学教学的有效管理,全力提供小学科学教学的公共资源。