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.     

Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems

The paper outlines the significant influence of constructivism in contemporary science and mathematics education and emphasizes the central role that epistemology plays in constructivist theory and practice. It is claimed that constructivism is basically a variant of old-style empiricist epistemology, which had its origins in Aristotle's individualist and sense-based theory of knowledge. There are well-known problems with empiricism from which constructivism appears unable to dissociate itself.     

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.     

Knowing and teaching science: the constructivist paradox

This paper addresses the parallel between the changes in students' and teachers' learning advocated by constructivist science educators. It begins with a summary of the epistemology of constructivism and uses a vignette drawn from a set of case studies to explore the impact of a constructivist science in‐service programme on an experienced and formal elementary science teacher. Judged by constructivist standards, the teacher described in the vignette makes very little progress. The irony of applying a constructivist critique to his work, however, is that it fails to treat the teachers' imperfect knowledge of teaching with the same respect as constructivists treat students' imperfect learning of science. The remainder of the paper explores this constructivist paradox, and suggests that‐like students' knowledge of science‐teachers' knowledge of constructivist science teaching is likely to grow through slow and gradual re‐formation of their established understanding of classroom theory and practice.     

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.     

中国特色建构主义的源头活水

无论是西方建构主义还是传统教学中“以教师为中心”的教育思想,都不适应我国培养创新型人才的需要,我们既要借鉴西方的建构主义学习理论又要正确理解、运用孔子的教育思想,创建适合中国国情的中国特色建构主义学习理论。孔子的教育思想,是中国特色建构主义的源头活水,对于我们探索中国特色建构主义具有现实指导意义。     

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     

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.     

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.     

Some Thoughts on the Notion of Purposeful Learning

Constructivism is presented as the inexorable denouement of the qualitative versus quantitative paradigm war. Postmodernism is equated with constructivism, then deconstructed and critiqued in light of rhetorical strategy. The problem of universals is discussed and the solution is elaborated into objectivist pedagogy. Elkind (2005) is cited as an exemplar of postmodern doublespeak and, accordingly, logically refuted. The article concludes that a constructivist monopoly in education ideology is calamitous. The sole curative would be a fundamental change in philosophy; that is, an acceptance of objectivist epistemology.     

Constructivism

Constructivism is a concept that in recent years has garnered considerable attention among science education researchers. Essentially, constructivism is a model of how learning takes place. Yager (1991, p. 53) called it a "most promising model" of learning. Yeany (1991, p. 1) alluded to a Kuhnian paradigm shift and suggested that constructivism may lead to a gelling of existing thought as well as the stimulation of new ideas. We do not believe this is hyperbole. In fact, we would add that the potential extends far beyond the bounds of science education (see e.g., Aderman & Russell, 1990). It seems to us that constructivist thought is applicable in any learning situation, including educational and psychological consultation. In this column, we first briefly describe constructivist thought as it has developed in the field of science education. Second, we suggest that constructivism can provide a promising conceptual framework for organizing research and practice in the various fields in which consultation is practiced.     

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.     

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.     

Constructivism in Practice: an Exploratory Study of Teaching Patterns and Student Motivation in Physics Classrooms in Finland,Germany and Switzerland

For the last three decades, moderate constructivism has become an increasingly prominent perspective in science education. Researchers have defined characteristics of constructivist-oriented science classrooms, but the implementation of such science teaching in daily classroom practice seems difficult. Against this background, we conducted a sub-study within the tri-national research project Quality of Instruction in Physics (QuIP) analysing 60 videotaped physics classes involving a large sample of students (N?=?1192) from Finland, Germany and Switzerland in order to investigate the kinds of constructivist components and teaching patterns that can be found in regular classrooms without any intervention. We applied a newly developed coding scheme to capture constructivist facets of science teaching and conducted principal component and cluster analyses to explore which components and patterns were most prominent in the classes observed. Two underlying components were found, resulting in two scales—Structured Knowledge Acquisition and Fostering Autonomy—which describe key aspects of constructivist teaching. Only the first scale was rather well established in the lessons investigated. Classes were clustered based on these scales. The analysis of the different clusters suggested that teaching physics in a structured way combined with fostering students’ autonomy contributes to students’ motivation. However, our regression models indicated that content knowledge is a more important predictor for students’ motivation, and there was no homogeneous pattern for all gender- and country-specific subgroups investigated. The results are discussed in light of recent discussions on the feasibility of constructivism in practice.     

Lonergan's Theory of Cognition,Constructivism and Science Education

Recent research literature in science education, sciencecurriculum documents, and science methods texts have been highly influenced by constructivist views ofhow students learn science. But the widespread and often uncritical acceptance of constructivism in scienceeducation does not reflect the heated debate between constructivists and realist science educatorsover its underlying philosophy, and the curricular and pedagogical implications of constructivism. This paperaims to show that Bernard Lonergan's theory of cognition can inform this debate by (a) suggesting ways tosee the merit in the views of constructivists and realists and bridge the gap between them, (b) illustratinghow Lonergan's thought can be brought to bear on science curriculum documents and teaching-learning resourcesfor science teachers. Lonergan's Theory of Cognition suggests that human knowing is not a singleoperation, but a dynamic and integral whole whose parts are sensory experience, understanding, and judging.     

Environmental Education as a Model for Constructivist Teaching

Abstract

Current literature related to science instruction often includes a discussion of the philosophy of constructivism. The authors describe four main components of a constructivist science lesson or unit. A review of commonly used environmental education materials was conducted to look for these components. Parallels between teaching strategies used in environmental education and constructivist methods are discussed.     

建构主义理论在煤炭院校“石油天然气地质学”课程教学改革中的指导

“石油与天然气地质学”作为限选课程加入到我校本科地质专业四年级学生选修课程范围,如何在煤炭特色院校保证该课程教学质量是一个现实的难题。本文从建构主义理论的角度出发,系统地阐述建构主义知识观、认识论、教学观,探讨煤炭院校专业知识背景下“石油与天然气地质学”的教改原则、教学改革具体方案,阐明建构主义在教学改革中的作用,是对新形势下“石油与天然气地质学”教学的有益探索。     

Constructivism: Does your practice match your conceptual framework?

Abstract

Though constructivism has been an epistemology espoused by early childhood educators since the field's inception; defining, understanding, and implementing a constructivist philosophy is challenging. This article includes an overview of constructivism, including the role of the learner and the teacher and the conditions that enhance learning. Also discussed will be distinct challenges that exist in the implementation of constructivism in a higher education setting. Practical strategies that universities have found to overcome these challenges are included.     

Constructing a Pragmatic Science of Learning and Instruction with Functional Contextualism

Constructivism has been embraced by many in the field of instructional design and technology (IDT), but its advocates have struggled to move beyond theory to practice or to empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach. As an alternative to constructivism, a new perspective emerging in psychology, known as functional contextualism, is presented. Like constructivism, functional contextualism also rejects objectivist epistemology, but provides a much more coherent philosophical basis on which to build an empirical science of learning and instruction. The philosophical worldview known as contextualism is reviewed to outline the similarities and differences between constructivism and functional contextualism, and the key characteristics of functional contextualism and the science it supports, behavior analysis, are described. Implications of functional contextualism for research and practice in IDT are then explored. Eric Fox [eric.fox@wmich.edu] is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Western Michigan University. This article was written while he was a doctoral student in the Learning & Instructional Technology program at Arizona State University.