Facilitating evidence-informed practice

This article draws on the notion of communal constructivism to explore its potential to frame and facilitate the development of evidence-informed practice. The explicit aspiration to nurture a research-informed workforce is prominent in discourse across policy makers, educational researchers and teacher professional groups in England; however, research evidence indicating how and why teachers might actually use research to inform their practice is limited. Furthermore, the vision for research engagement of itself is not necessarily shared between researchers and practitioners. This study examines the relationships between research and practice when academics and professionals work together. Drawing on data from the co-construction of an online research-informed guide for the teaching of English as an Additional Language (EAL), analysis highlights the complexities inherent in translating research into practice for different stakeholders. Discussion argues for the recognition of communal constructivism as a pedagogy of learning that can build understanding between researchers and practitioners for how practice might become research-informed.     

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.     

Plurealism and education: Israel Scheffler's synthesis and its presumable educational implications

Israel Scheffler, one of the most important figures in the history of philosophy of education in the United States, has recently introduced an interesting idea in terms of the long-standing debate between constructivism and realism. Scheffler's idea has its roots in his debate with Nelson Goodman, his Harvard colleague, who defended thoroughgoing constructivism and pluralism (a fusion he termed "irrealism"). Scheffler describes his plurealism as a synthesis of Peircean "monistic realism" and Goodmanian "pluralist irrealism." This article elaborates the possible educational implications of all three of these positions: constructivism, realism, and plurealism. Scheffler's idea of plurealism is educationally rewarding since it preserves Goodmanian pluralism without slipping into his voluntarism or relativism. In educational terms, plurealism implies, first, the value of different ways to both see and describe the world and, second, the independent importance of different realms of science as well as other areas of human understanding. As a version of realism, it indicates that we can evaluate and improve our understanding of reality.     

解读康德建构主义思想的缘起、内涵及当代教育启示

当前对于建构主义的很多片面理解与误读仍然在教育理论界和实践界普遍存在,这对开展有效的教育教学改革无疑产生了诸多影响和障碍。从德国古典哲学家康德的思想体系中去进行追本溯源式的挖掘是对建构主义思想形成更加深刻和正确理解的一个重要研究路径。康德的建构主义思想产生于经验主义向传统理性主义的挑战过程之中,并通过调和理性与经验而得以产生;其核,心内涵体现在认识结构的确立、自由精神的彰显、理性认识的不可能性以及有价值知识的辨析等四个方面。康德的建构主义思想表明：建构主义应定位为认识论而非本体论;人不能超越自身的知识经验去建构知识,知识的建构是有方向性和标准性的;建构主义不是一种实践方法的标签,而是一种指向人的深层认识及其机制的理论解析,更是一种判断各种流变不居的教学实践方法的价值准绳。     

建构主义教育活动的系统分析与哲学思考

建构主义的出现给教育领域注入新的活力，但基于对其发展沿革和现实的思考，建构主义教育理论正陷入一种认识和行为上的误区。本文通过对建构主义教育思想的哲学思考和建构主义教育活动的系统分析认识到：外部建构是社会建构主义教育活动的基石，而情意建构是外部建构的重点，是通向认知结构完善的桥梁。     

An Essay for Educators: Epistemological Realism Really is Common Sense

“What is truth?” Pontius Pilot asked Jesus of Nazareth. For many educators today this question seems quaintly passé. Rejection of “truth” goes hand-in-hand with the rejection of epistemological realism. Educational thought over the last decade has instead been dominated by empiricist, anti-realist, instrumentalist epistemologies of two types: first by psychological constructivism and later by social constructivism. Social constructivism subsequently has been pressed to its logical conclusion in the form of relativistic multiculturalism. Proponents of both psychological constructivism and social constructivism value knowledge for its utility and eschew as irrelevant speculation any notion that knowledge is actually about reality. The arguments are largely grounded in the discourse of science and science education where science is “western” science; neither universal nor about what is really real. The authors defended the notion of science as universal in a previous article. The present purpose is to offer a commonsense argument in defense of critical realism as an epistemology and the epistemically distinguished position of science (rather than privileged) within a framework of epistemological pluralism. The paper begins with a brief cultural survey of events during the thirty-year period from 1960–1990 that brought many educators to break with epistemological realism and concludes with comments on the pedagogical importance of realism. Understanding the cultural milieu of the past forty years is critical to understanding why traditional philosophical attacks on social constructivist ideas have proved impotent defenders of scientific realism.     

建构主义在篮球进攻战术教学中的应用研究

建构主义作为一种科学的教学方法 ,在英语、数学等文化课教学中应用较多 ,但应用于体育等术科教学的报导甚少 .作为一种尝试 ,我们把建构主义应用于篮球进攻基础战术教学 ,取得了良好的教学效果 ,也为其它体育科目的教学提供了借鉴 .     

文化的“误读”，还是无知的歪曲：科学教育中的建构主义——一个国际比较的视角

建构主义是国际科学教育中的重要支撑性理论，对建构主义做深入分析，可以澄清中国教育改革中的混乱认识。反思中国教育中建构主义研究的现状，树立我国本土化的教育改革取向，全面地研究，小心地论证。本土化修缮，以及谨慎地应用，是教育研究者的理论自觉。     

从建构主义探索提高大学生英语听说能力的教学方法

近年来,建构主义的理论思想受到了教育界的广泛关注,得到了越来越多教育界工作者的研究与认同,已经成为教育工作中重要的理论基础支柱之一。建构主义知识观在提高学生的英语听力方面起着重要的作用。本文阐述建构主义知识观对英语听说能力培养的借鉴作用,结合现在大学生英语听说能力现状,以建构主义为基础提出相应的教学建议,建构语言交流的情景,给学生创造更多的听说机会,发挥其主动性;改变教师在课堂上的角色,从知识的传播者向学生的合作者转变。     

The ecology of interactive learning environments: situating traditional theory

In educational discourse on human learning (i.e. the result of experience) and development (i.e. the result of maturation), there are three fundamental theoretical frameworks, – behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism, each of which have been applied, with varying degrees of success, in online environments. An ecological framework of human learning and development in interactive learning environments is proposed. Such an inclusive paradigm organizes the fundamental theoretical assumptions of behaviourism (i.e. automated learning), cognitivism (i.e. recall, understanding, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, creativity, problem solving) and constructivism (i.e. private and shared meaning). Based on review of the literature, behaviourism is best conceptualized as a learning theory; constructivist theoretical assumptions are best applied to cognitive development including private online experience (cognitive constructivism) and shared online experience (social constructivism). Cognitivism is a particularly relevant theoretical orientation in understanding both human learning and development in interactive learning environments.     

建构式高职应用写作教学模式探析

近年来,建构主义学习理论风靡于教育领域,广大教师正在尝试运用这一理论指导课堂教学,以提高教学质量。现代认知心理学把学生学习过程,看作是认知结构的建构过程,旨在探讨构建主义学习理论的基础上,并将这一理论应用于高职应用写作教学过程中,使教学效果有了明显提高。     

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.     

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?     

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.     

The Strict Analysis and the Open Discussion

A crucial challenge in terms of research methods in philosophy of education is that of combining philosophical ways of analyzing and arguing, with the dialogical and pluralist way of thinking needed in educational research. In this article I describe how I dealt with this challenge in my research project focusing on educational implications of the positions defended in the debate on constructivism and realism between Israel Scheffler and Nelson Goodman. The key to my methodological approach is an emphasis on the role of a thoroughgoing process of analysis and synthesis. I see this process as the prerequisite for profound philosophical dialogue on education.     

Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate

Cognitive constructivism is not a unique theoretical framework, pedagogical approach, or epistemology, but a general, metaphorical assumption about the nature of cognition that virtually all cognitive educational researchers accept. Despite this unifying assumption, there are many different cognitive constructivist research programs and theories within the community at large. This article contrasts cognitive constructivism with several other forms of constructivism in the educational research community. It then attempts to represent the range of theoretical approaches within cognitive constructivism, pointing to examples and potential educational applications of cognitive constructivist ideas. Cognitive schema theory receives special attention as an important theoretical perspective that has been relatively neglected in recent theoretical discussions. It is believed to have significant potential for building conceptual bridges between information processing and radical constructivist viewpoints.     

建构主义对科学教育理论的贡献与局限

建构主义在教育上的贡献主要在于在教育思想上进一步强调了认知主体的主动性 ,在科学教育上指出了科学知识学习的困难性。但激进的建构主义认识论和方法论在根本上有悖于科学理性 ,将认知主体的主动性和科学学习的困难性夸大为科学知识不可传授 ,这给教育研究和实践带来了混乱。在我国进行科学教育理论探索和实践的过程中 ,在应用建构主义原理发展学生的自主性的同时 ,应注意防止激进的建构主义的负面影响     

建构主义观下的数学课堂教学模式的探索——数学“问题解决”教学模式的理论与实践

“问题解决”作为一种新的数学教育理论,在世界上受到普遍的重视,在一些国家已成为一种主要的数学教学模式。基于建构主义的学习观,郑毓信先生认为,就数学学习而言,“学数学就是作数学,也即我们应当让学生通过问题解决来学习数学”。目前,怎样应用数学“问题解决”教学模式改进我们的数学教育,仍然是一个需要深入研究的现实课题。本文试图从建构主义的视角,对此作一探索。     

建构主义观下的数学课堂教学模式的探索——数学"问题解决"教学模式的理论与实践

“问题解决”作为一种新的数学教育理论,在世界上受到普遍的重视,在一些国家已成为一种主要的数学教学模式。基于建构主义的学习观,郑毓信先生认为,就数学学习而言,“学数学就是作数学,也即我们应当让学生通过问题解决来学习数学”。目前,怎样应用数学“问题解决”教学模式改进我们的数学教育,仍然是一个需要深入研究的现实课题。本文试图从建构主义的视角,对此作一探索。     

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.