8/18/2019 2. matthews2

1/22

Constructivism and Science Education

Michael Matthews

FROM Michael R. Matthews (1994) Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science !ew "or#:

 Ro$tledge pp. 1%& ' 11.

Pope John XXIII spoke of the need for aggiornaento (renewal) in the Church: scienceeducation has had its share of such calls. o!eti!es these calls are for renewal at a tactical or 

local le"el# other ti!es the$ are calls for renewal at a strate%ic or %lo&al le"el. 't "arious ti!es

new teachin% !ethods (%roup learnin%# co!puterassisted instruction# cooperati"e learnin%#inuir$ learnin%)# curricula (*# structure of the discipline# inte%rated)# la&orator$ procedures

and assess!ent techniues are ad"anced as the answer to "arious peda%o%ical or participation pro&le!s in science education. Constructi"is! is the !a+or plank in the conte!porar$aggiornaento proposals# it is a strate%ic pro%ra! that has i!plications for "arious tacticalle"el

refor!s. In ,--, the president of the /ational 'ssociation for Research in cience *eachin%

(/'R*) said: 0' unification of thinkin%# research# curriculu! de"elop!ent# and teacher education appears to now &e occurrin% under the the!e of constructi"is!. . . there is a lack of 

 polarised de&ate0 (1ean$ ,--,# p. ,). Peter Fensha!# a wellplaced o&ser"er# has re!arked that

0*he !ost conspicuous ps$cholo%ical influence on curriculu! thinkin% in science since ,-23 has

 &een the constructi"ist "iew of learnin%0 (Fensha! ,--4# p. 23,). 's the o"erall clai! of this &ook is that the histor$ and philosoph$ of science contri&ute to the theor$ and practice of science

teachin%# constructi"is! will &e e5a!ined to see how 6P can contri&ute to de&ates in the

theor$ side of science education.

Central to constructi"is! is a "iew a&out the nature of hu!an knowled%e# and !ore

 particularl$ of scientific knowled%e7 a "iew a&out the ori%ins# trans!ission !echanis!s# and"alidation procedures of scientific knowled%e. 6istorical and philosophical in"esti%ation can

shed li%ht upon these constructi"ist clai!s. *his chapter is critical of constructi"is!# &ut the

 &ook8s thesis is confir!ed !erel$ &$ showin% that the histor$ and philosoph$ of science is

rele*ant to the appraisal of constructi"ist clai!s. *he &ook8s thesis does not reuire a%ree!entwith the critical conclusions here ad"anced. Man$ pro!inent and scholarl$ constructi"ists appeal

to the histor$ and philosoph$ of science to esta&lish their episte!olo%ical and ontolo%ical clai!s.

*he crucial point is that the histor$ and philosoph$ of science are reco%ni9ed as i!portant &$

 &oth sides of the constructi"ist de&ate.

What Is Constructivism?

*here are &asicall$ two !a+or traditions of constructi"is!. *he first is ps$cholo%ical

constructi"is!# ori%inatin% with Jean Pia%ets account of childrens learnin% as a process of 

 personal# indi"idual# intellectual construction arisin% fro! their acti"it$ in the world. *his

,

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

2/22

tradition &ifurcates into# on the one hand# the !ore personal# su&+ecti"e tradition of Pia%et that

can &e seen in "on ;lasersfelds work# and on the other hand# into the social constructi"is! of 

the Russian ) and

?a"e (,-22).

*he second !a+or tradition is sociolo%ical constructi"is!# ori%inatin% with @!ile =urkhei!

and au%!ented &$ sociolo%ists of culture such as Peter Aer%er and !ore recentl$# &$ sociolo%ists

of science in the @din&ur%h chool such as Aarr$ Aarnes# =a"id Aloor# 6arr$ Collins and Aruno

?atour. *his sociolo%ical tradition !aintains that scientific knowled%e is sociall$ constructed

and "indicated# and it in"esti%ates the circu!stances and d$na!ics of sciences construction. In

contrast to Pia%et and ) and 43 at the thirdconference in ,--G.

Constructi"ist or interacti"e teachin% !ethods are &ein% widel$ ad"ocated and de"eloped.*he$ are contrasted on the one hand with the authoritarian# teacherdo!inated# trans!ission

!odel of science instruction# the !odel that Paulo Friere called the 0&ankin% !odel0 of 

education7 on the other hand# with inuir$ !ethods that were cha!pioned as part of the

curriculu! refor!s of the ,-H3s. Constructi"ist !ethods are !eant to si%nificantl$ transfor! thescience classroo!. One i!portant ad"ocate has ar%ued that:

If the theor$ of knowin% that constructi"is! &uilds upon were adopted as a workin%education. (;lasersfeld ,-2-# p. h$pothesis# it could &rin% a&out so!e rather profound

chan%es in the %eneral practice of ,G)

Constructi"is! is a hetero%enous !o"e!ent. ' recent re"iew has identified at least the

4

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

3/22

followin% "arieties: conte5tual# dialectical# e!pirical# infor!ationprocessin%# !ethodolo%ical#

!oderate# Pia%etian# postepiste!olo%ical# pra%!atic# radical# realist# social and sociohistorical

(;ood# andersee E t Julien ,--G). *o this list could &e added hu!anistic cons#tructi"is!(Cheun% E *a$lor ,--,) and didactic constructi"is! (Arink ,--,). Constructi"is!# fro! its

ori%ins in de"elop!ental ps$cholo%$# has spread to enco!pass# often nai"el$# !an$ do!ains of 

educational inuir$. *he ran%e of constructi"ist concerns can &e seen in the su&headin%s of arecent science education article: 0' constructi"ist "iew of learnin%#0 0' constructi"ist "iew of 

teachin%#0 0' "iew of science#0 0'i!s of science education#0 0' constructi"ist "iew of 

curriculu!0 and 0' constructi"ist "iew of curriculu! de"elop!ent0 (Aell ,--,). For !an$#constructi"is! has ceased &ein% +ust a learnin% theor$# or e"en an educational theor$# &ut rather it

constitutes a world"iew or +eltansch$$ng as su%%ested in re!arks such as:

*o &eco!e a constructi"ist is to use constructi"is! as a referent for thou%hts and actions.*hat is to sa$ when thinkin% or actin%# &eliefs associated with constructi"is! assu!e a

hi%her "alue than other &eliefs. For a "ariet$ of reasons the process is not eas$. (*o&in

,--,# p. ,)

Epistemological Commitments 

Constructi"is! e!phasi9es that science is a creati"e hu!an endea"or which is historicall$

and culturall$ conditioned# and that its knowled%e clai!s are not a&solute. *his a!ounts to atruis! shared &$ !ost schools of philosoph$ of science# &ut ne"ertheless it is worth restatin%.

Ae$ond this truis!# constructi"is! is co!!itted to certain episte!olo%ical positions that are

"er$ contentious and# %i"en the widespread educational influence of the doctrine# deser"es close

scrutin$. 't its core constructi"is! has a su&+ecti"ist# e!piricist# and personalist understandin%of hu!an knowed%e# and conseuentl$ of scientific knowled%e. 's one of the !ost influential

constructi"ists in science and !athe!atics education has put it:

nowled%e is the result of an indi"idual su&+ect8s constructi"e acti"it$# not a co!!odit$

that so!ehow resides outside the knower and can &e con"e$ed or instilled &$ dili%ent

 perception or lin%uistic co!!unication. (;lasersfeld ,--3# p.G>)

o!e e5tracts fro! "arious sources can %i"e a sense of the episte!olo%ical and ontolo%ical

 positions adopted &$ constructi"ists in science education7 the$ are all "ariants of a su&+ect

centered# e!piricist theor$ of knowled%e:

*he fact that scientific knowled%e ena&les us to cope does not +ustif$ the &elief that

scientific knowled%e pro"ides a picture of the world that corresponds to an a&soluterealit$. (;lasersfeld ,-2-# p. ,G)

'lthou%h we !a$ assu!e the e5istence of an e5ternal world we do not ha"e direct accessto it7 science as pu&lic knowled%e is not so !uch a disco"er$ as a carefull$ checked

construction. (=ri"er E Oldha! ,-2H# p. ,3-)

Put into si!ple ter!s# constructi"is! can &e descri&ed as essentiall$ a theor$ a&out the

G

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

4/22

li!its of hu!an knowled%e# a &elief that ail knowled%e is necessaril$ a product of our 

own co%niti"e acts. e can ha"e no direct or un!ediated knowled%e of an$ e5ternal or 

o&+ecti"e realit$. e construct our understandin% throu%h our e5periences# and thecharacter of our e5perience is influenced profoundl$ &$ our co%niti"e lens. (Confre$

,--3# p. ,32)

Constructi"is! is# lo%icall$# a postepiste!olo%ical position. *he standard uestions of 

episte!olo%$ cannot &e answered K or e"en reasona&l$ asked K fro! this perspecti"e. Its

 pre!ises su%%est# rather# a&andon!ent of traditional episte!olo%ical lan%ua%e.(/oddin%s ,--3# p. ,2)

@piste!olo%$# e"en when supposedl$ a&andoned# is "ital to constructi"is!7 indeed it dri"es

constructi"ist educational theor$ and practice. Constructi"ists adopt !ost of the episte!olo%icaltheses of postpositi"ist philosoph$ of science. *hese theses ha"e &een well laid out in Arown

(,->-) and uppe (,->>) and su!!ari9ed in ;arrison (,-2H). *he$ include the followin%:

1) O&ser"ational state!ents are alwa$s dependent upon particular theoretical s$ste!s for their e5pression. *here is a difference &etween 0seein%0 and 0seein% as. 0 *he latter# propositional

 perception# is dependent upon lan%ua%e and theories.2) *he distinction &etween o&ser"ational and theoretical ter!s in a theor$ can onl$ &e !ade on

 pra%!atic %rounds# not on episte!ic %rounds0 .

3) O&ser"ations the!sel"es are theoreticall$ dependent or deter!ined7 what people look for andnotice is influenced &$ what the$ want to see or what the$ re%ard as rele"ant to an

in"esti%ation.

4) *heories are alwa$s underdeter!ined &$ e!pirical e"idence# no !atter how !uch such

e"idence is accu!ulated. For an$ set of data# an$ nu!&er of theories can &e constructed toha"e that data as an i!plication7 for an$ data points on a %raph# an$ nu!&er of cur"es can &e

drawn throu%h the!.

5) *heories are i!!une fro! e!pirical disproof or falsification &ecause ad+ust!ents canalwa$s &e !ade to their au5iliar$ assu!ptions to acco!!odate the discordant e"idence7

there can &e no crucial e5peri!ents in science.

o!e constructi"ists !o"e &e$ond postpositi"is!# which after all is still a !odern position in

that the !a+or postpositi"ist philosophers &elie"e in the search for truth# to the post!odernis! of 

?$otard# Rort$# =errida and Aarthes# where the "er$ possi&ilit$ of truth is a&andoned# alon% with

 philosoph$ of science as usuall$ understood (=arusniko"a ,--4).

te"en ?er!an (,-2-)# followin% ilpatrick (,-2>) and earlier# "on ;lasersfeld# su%%ests

that the core episte!olo%ical theses of ps$cholo%ical constructi"is! are:

,) nowled%e is acti"el$ constructed &$ the co%ni9in% su&+ect# not passi"el$ recei"ed fro! the

en"iron!ent.4) Co!in% to know is an adapti"e process that or%ani9es one8s e5periential world7 it does not

disco"er an independent# pree5istin% world outside the !ind of the knower.

;ra$son heatle$ offers a nearl$ identical su!!ar$ of the episte!olo%ical core of 

D

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

5/22

constructi"is!# sa$in%:

*he theor$ of constructi"is! rests on two !ain principles. . . . Principle one states thatknowled%e is not passi"el$ recei"ed# &ut is acti"el$ &uilt up &$ the co%ni9in% su&+ect. . . .

Principle two states that the function of co%nition is adapti"e and ser"es the or%anisation

of the e5periential world# not the disco"er$ of ontolo%ical realit$. . . . *hus we do not findtruth &ut construct "ia&le e5planations of our e5periences. (heatle$ ,--,# p. ,3)

Ontological Commitments 

Constructi"ists often e!&race an idealist ontolo%$# or idealist theor$ a&out the e5istential

status of scientific and e"er$da$ o&+ects. Idealist ontolo%$ !aintains that the world is created &$and dependent upon hu!an thou%ht. @rnst "on ;lasersfeld8s radical constructi"is! is the &est

known idealist "ariant in educational circles. 6e sa$s:

*he realist &elie"es his constructs to &e a replica or reflection of independentl$ e5istin%structures# while the constructi"ist re!ains aware of the e5periencer8s role as ori%inator of 

all structures. . . for the constructi"ist there are no structures other than those which theknower constitutes &$ his "er$ own acti"it$ of coordination of e5periential particles.

(;lasersfeld ,-2># p. ,3D)

'nd#

Radical constructi"is!# thus# is radical &ecause it &reaks with con"ention and de"elops a

theor$ of knowled%e in which knowled%e does not reflect an 0o&+ecti"e0 ontolo%icalrealit$# &ut e5clusi"el$ an orderin% and or%ani9ation of a world constituted &$ our 

e5perience. *he radical constructi"ist has relinuished 0!etaph$sical realis!0 once and

for all. (;lasersfeld ,-2># p. ,3-)

*he ontolo%ical idealis! here e!&raced &$ ps$cholo%ical constructi"ists !irrors and is

encoura%ed &$ a co!para&le idealis! co!!on a!on% newst$le# postMertonian sociolo%ists of science# particularl$ those associated with the @din&ur%h school. *he influential sociolo%ist

@!ile =urkhei! had lon% a%o written that:

If thou%ht is to &e freed# it !ust &eco!e the creator of its own o&+ect7 and the onl$ wa$ toattain this %oal is to accord it a realit$ that it has to !ake or construct itself. Therefore

tho$ght has as its ai not the reprod$ction of a gi*en reality ,$t the constr$ction of a

 f$t$re reality. It follows that the "alue of ideas can no lon%er &e assessed &$ reference too&+ects &ut !ust &e deter!ined &$ the de%ree of their utilit$# their !ore or less

Bad"anta%eous character. (=urkhei! ,->4# p. 4,)

*his idealis! has &een carried throu%h &$ the @din&ur%h chool. ?atour and ool%ar at one

 point sa$ that 08outthereness8 is the conse-$ence of scientific work rather than its ca$se 

(?atour E ool%ar ,-2H# p. ,24). *he$ %o on to sa$ that realit$ is the conseuence rather than

the cause of scientific construction. Other contri&utors to the @din&ur%h pro%ra! sa$ such thin%s

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

6/22

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

7/22

e"idence.

 0*al$ation of the new ideas either e5peri!entall$ or &$ thinkin% throu%h their 

i!plications. tudents should tr$ to fi%ure out the &est wa$s of testin% the alternati"eideas. tudents !a$ at this sta%e feel dissatisfied with their e5istin% conceptions.

D) 5pplication of deas where pupils are %i"en the opportunit$ to use their de"eloped ideas in a

"ariet$ of situations# &oth fa!iliar and no"el.) Re*iew is the final sta%e in which students are in"ited to reflect &ack on how their ideas ha"e

chan%ed &$ drawin% co!parisons &etween their thinkin% at the start of the lesson seuence#

and their thinkin% at the end.

=ri"er and Oldha! liken the final re"iew sta%e to the learnin%a&out learnin% e!phasis that

 /o"ak and ;owin (,-2D) clai! should &e a part of all teachin%. *hat is# as the$ learn !aterial#

students should at the sa!e ti!e &e learnin% so!ethin% a&out the process of effecti"e learnin%.More recentl$ this has &een referred to as 0!etaco%nition0 (hite E ;unstone,-2-).

Constructi"ist !ethods e!phasi9e the en%a%e!ent of the student in the learnin% process and the

i!portance of prior knowled%e or conceptuali9ations for new learnin%. Constructi"ist "iews of 

learnin% ha"e &een su!!ari9ed &$ =ri"er and Aell (,-2H) as:

• ?earnin% outco!es depend not onl$ on the learnin% en"iron!ent &ut also on the knowled%e

of the learner.

• ?earnin% in"ol"es the construction of !eanin%s. Meanin%s constructed &$ students fro!

what the$ see or hear !a$ not &e those intended. Construction of a !eanin% is influenced to a

lar%e e5tent &$ our e5istin% knowled%e.

• *he construction of !eanin% is a continuous and acti"e process.

• Meanin%s# once constructed# are e"aluated and can &e accepted or re+ected.

• ?earners ha"e the final responsi&ilit$ for their learnin%.

• *here are patterns in the t$pes of !eanin%s students construct due to shared e5periences with

the ph$sical world and throu%h natural lan%ua%e.

One persistent issue facin% constructi"ist teachers is what happens when# as acknowled%ed#

the child8s constructed !eanin% differs fro! the one intended &$ the teacherL It is i!portant to

ascertain whether this is the case# and constructi"ists do well to re!ind us that not e"er$thin%tau%ht is cau%ht. Aut the educational issue is to deter!ine what follows fro! the reco%nition of 

this discrepanc$: do we i!pro"e our teachin% so as to eli!inate the discrepanc$# or do we accept

the child8 s0!isconception#0 0alternati"e fra!ework0 or +ust plain errorL One pro!inentconstructi"ist te5t ad"ises seekin% har!on$ &etween scientific and children8s conceptions onl$

up to that point where continued teachin% &ears ad"ersel$ upon a child8s selfestee! and their 

0feelin% for what constitutes a sensi&le e5planation0 (Os&orne E Fre$&er% ,-2# p. -3).

One o&"ious uestion is whether or not these constructi"ist teachin% techniues# and

understandin% of learnin%# are uniue to constructi"is!. *he answer is clearl$ no. Much of the

 &est constructi"ist techniuewith its e!phasis on acti"el$ en%a%in% the learner in their ownlearnin% and pa$in% attention to the prior &eliefs and conceptuali9ations of studentsis at least as

old as ocrates8 interro%ation of the sla"e &o$ in the  Meno. Montai%ne# in his deli%htful ,23

essa$ on 0*he @ducation of Children#0 o&ser"ed that:

>

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

8/22

Most tutors ne"er stop &awlin% into our ears# as thou%h the$ were pourin% water into a

funnel7 and our task is onl$ to repeat what has &een told us. I should like the tutor to

correct this practice. . . . ocrates and later 'rcesilaus first had their disciples speak# andthen the$ spoke to the!. The a$thority of those who teach is often an o,stacle to those

who want to learn. CiceroN . . . ?et hi! not &e asked for an account !erel$ of the words

of his lesson# &ut of its sense and su&stance# and let hi! +ud%e the profit he has !ade not &$ the testi!on$ of his !e!or$# &ut of his life. (Montai%ne ,23,-DG# p. ,,)

=ri"er and Oldha! %o on to sa$ that constructi"ist curriculu! planners cannot adopt thestandard !odel of a passi"e student# an acti"e teacher and the curriculu! as so!ethin% the latter 

trans!its to the for!er. *wo chan%es reuired are that the curriculu! is not seen as a &od$ of 

knowled%e or skills &ut the pro%ra! of acti"ities fro! which such knowled%e or skills can

 possi&l$ &e acuired or constructed7 and also that there is to &e a shift in the status of thecurriculu! fro! that which is deter!ined prior to teachin% (thou%h ne%otia&le &etween adults)#

to so!ethin% with a pro&le!atic status.

*hese co!!ents illustrate a pro&le! with constructi"is!: it freuentl$ o"erreaches itself. Ituses clai!s a&out learnin% processes and de"elop!ental ps$cholo%$ (the ori%inal heart of 

constructi"is!) to esta&lish wider educational and social positions. *he curriculu!# for instance#does not flow fro! learnin% theor$ alone. ?earnin% theor$ !a$ indicate how so!ethin% should

 &e tau%ht# &ut what and how $ch should &e tau%ht to who follow fro! different or additional

considerations. '!on% these are +ud%!ents of social needs# personal needs# the rele"ant !eritsof different do!ains of knowled%e and e5perience and finall$# due political decision!akin%.

Constructi"ists freuentl$ i%nore# or i!plicitl$ assu!e# such considerations in e5trapolatin% fro!

learnin% theor$ to curriculu! !atters# and to educational theor$ !ore %enerall$.

*he =ri"er and Oldha! clai!s# for instance# do not cast !uch li%ht upon the difficult !atter 

of curriculu! de"elop!ent. *heir !o"e fro! re+ectin% the curriculu! as a &od$ of knowled%e or 

skills# to sa$in% it is a pro%ra! of acti"ities fro! which such knowled%e and skills !i%ht &eacuired# does not do awa$ with the need to specif$ such knowled%e or skills. Further# to sa$ that

the curriculu! has a pro&le!atic status is a!&i%uous. It !a$ &e pro&le!atic whether particular 

co!ponents are in the curriculu!# &ut this is another truis!# as there is alwa$s de&ate a&out thecontents of the curriculu!. Aut it does not follow fro! this truis! that specific contents are

 pro&le!atic. It !a$ &e pro&le!atic whether %eo!etr$ is included in hi%h school !athe!atics#

 &ut it does not follow fro! this that %eo!etr$ is pro&le!atic.

Other constructi"ists endorse the work of educational theorists such as Michael 'pple# 6enr$

;irou5 and other critical theorists. Aut this is freuentl$ done without awareness of the serious

de&ate and opposition that this work has occasioned in the philosoph$ of education. Jane ;il&ert#for instance# sa$s: 0*here are !an$ parallels &etween the literature on the de"elop!ent of critical

 peda%o%$ andN the literature on constructi"ist learnin%0 (;il&ert ,--G# p. G). *his is in part 

 &ecause critical theorists 0uestion the "alue of such concepts as indi"idualis!# efficienc$#rationalit$ and o&+ecti"it$# and the for!s of curriculu! and peda%o%$ that ha"e de"eloped fro!

these concepts0 (;il&ert ,--G# p. 43). *his endorse!ent of critical education theor$ as the

 partner of constructi"ist learnin% theor$ is not surprisin%# &ut it is unfortunate. *he philosoph$#

 politics and lan%ua%e of critical theor$ ha"e &een seriousl$ criticised.

2

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

9/22

Constructivism and Inquiry Learning 

Constructi"is! atte!pts to steer a path &etween teacherdo!inated instruction# the traditional

didactic !odel of education# and studentled disco"er$ learnin%# the pro%ressi"e !odel of education. *he contrast with e5tre!e didacticis! is reasona&l$ clearcut# the contrast with

disco"er$ or inuir$ learnin% is less so. ' lar%escale re"iew of inuir$ teachin% has pro"ided

a description of the !odel inuir$ classroo!:

Instruction. . . in inuir$ classroo!s reflects a "ariet$ of !ethodolo%iesdiscussions#

in"esti%ati"e la&oratories# studentinitiated inuiries# lectures# de&ates. *eachers ser"e as

role !odels in deli&eratin% issues# in e5a!inin% "alues# in ad!ittin% error# and inconfrontin% areas of their own i%norance. *he classroo! at!osphere is conduci"e to

inuir$. It is eas$ for students to ask uestions. Risktakin% is encoura%ed and student

responses are listened to# clarified# and deli&erated upon with hi%h freuenc$ of student

student transactions. Classroo! cli!ate sti!ulates a thorou%h# thou%htful e5ploration of o&+ects and e"ents# rather than a need to finish the te5t. Inuir$ transactions are

concerned with students8 de"elopin% !eanin%. *hus# in an inuir$ classroo! there is ati!e for doin%. . . a ti!e for reflection. . . a ti!e for feelin%. . . and a ti!e for assess!ent.

(elch ,-2,# p. G)

*his classroo! would pass euall$ as a !odel constructi"ist class.

*he failures of inuir$ learnin% can &e attri&uted to a nu!&er of factors# so!e of which are

e5ternal# ha"in% to do with teacher education# pro"ision of resources# school and societ$e5pectations# assess!ent de!ands# !ethods of i!ple!entation and so on.,- Aut the central

causes of failure are internal ones# ha"in% to do with a series of errors in the in the intellectual

foundations of inuir$ learnin%. It is worth detailin% so!e of these errors# as the passa%e of ti!ehas &$ no !eans laid the! to rest and# further# constructi"ists are in dan%er of re"i"in% the!.

*hese core philosophical pro&le!s of inuir$ learnin% can &e illustrated fro! !an$ sources.

Consider# for instance# the followin%:

Inuir$ *rainin%. . . %i"es the child a plan of operation that will help hi! to disco"er 

causal factors of ph$sical chan%e throu%h his own initiati"e and control and not to depend

on the e5planations and interpretations of teachers or other knowled%ea&le adults. 6elearns to for!ulate h$potheses# to test the! throu%h a "er&al for! of controlled

e5peri!entation# and to interpret the results. In a nutshell# the pro%ra! is ai!ed at

!akin% pupils !ore independent# s$ste!atic# e!pirical# and inducti"e in their approachto pro&le!s of science. (uch!an ,-H3# uoted in und E *row&rid%e ,-H># p. G>)

e see here a nu!&er of propositions# all of which are central to disco"er$ learnin%# and allof which are either false or hi%hl$ contentious.

,) *hat a child in isolation can disco"er and "indicate scientific truths.

4) *hat the lan%ua%e and concepts reuired for h$pothesis de"elop!ent can &e acuired

-

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

10/22

independentl$ of teachers or# !ore %enerall$# independentl$ of social interaction and

 participation in lan%ua%e co!!unities.

G) *hat the testin% of a h$pothesis# and the interpretation of the test# is strai%ht forward# andindeed si!ple enou%h e"en for ele!entar$ schoolchildren.

D) *hat scientific concepts are for!ed &$ a&straction fro! particulars.

) *hat the scientific !ethod is inducti"e.

*he earlier chapter on ;alileo8s disco"er$ of the laws of pendulu! !otion ha"e illustrated

the deficienc$ of all the fore%oin% clai!s. In %eneral# such clai!s are !ore characteristic of 'ristotelianis! than the$ are of !ode! science. *he earlier ar%u!ents for re+ectin% these

 positions will not &e rehearsed here7 suffice it to sa$ that the clai!s !ade fail to reco%ni9e that:

,) Concepts do not e!er%e fro! sensor$ e5perience in the wa$ assu!ed. *his is the !istakenle%ac$ not onl$ of 'ristotle# &ut of ?ocke# 6u!e and the Aritish e!piricists. Much has &een

written on this !atter in the li%ht of the 0theor$ dependence of o&ser"ation0 thesis.

4) cientific h$potheses are for!ulated usin% the conceptual foundations of scientific discourses#

and these conceptual foundations ha"e to &e acuired &$ instruction and participation. 'sPaulo Freire# repeatin% 6e%el# has said: 0*he 8we think8 deter!ines the 8I think8 and not the

re"erse.0G) *here is a ualitati"e difference &etween disco"er$ in the sense of for!ulatin% and e"en

supportin% a h$pothesis a&out so!e !atter# and disco"er$ in the sense of "indicatin% such a

h$pothesis. *his traditionall$ has &een called the difference &etween the conte5t of disco"er$and the conte5t of +ustification. *he latter essentiall$ reuires pu&lic discourse and a%reed

canons of +ustification7 it is not a Ro&inson Crusoe !atter.

D) =isco"er$ in an$ educationall$ serious sense i!plies knowled%e clai!s# which in turn i!pl$

students ha"in% %ood reasons for their &eliefs or h$potheses# and this in turn i!plies so!eaccount of what constitutes %ood reasons# which finall$ reuires an episte!olo%ical position

that cannot &e purel$ indi"iduall$ %enerated. uch episte!olo%$# or protoepiste!olo%$# arises

fro! !ore or less sophisticated social interaction. ' %ood reason for a putati"e knowled%eclai! !i%ht initiall$ &e# 0I &elie"e it#0 su&seuentl$ it !i%ht &e 0M$ !other told !e#0 then it

!i%ht &e 0*he &ook sa$s so#0 then it !i%ht &e 0*his "er$ wellrecei"ed &ook sa$s so0 and so

on with increasin% episte!olo%ical sophistication.

*he wholehearted adoption of inducti"is! &$ the science education co!!unit$ in the ,-H3s

was as unfortunate as it was unnecessar$. A$ the !id,-H3s there was enou%h written in the

histor$ and philosoph$ of science to cast dou&t upon the inducti"ist "iews so characteristic of inuir$ learnin%. *he clear 8and detri!ental effects of this separation of science education fro!

the histor$ and philosoph$ of science in the ,-H3s is a powerful ar%u!ent for doin% e"er$thin%

 possi&le to pre"ent the separation recurrin%. 's Ja!es Rutherford re!arked in ,-HD# teachersneed so!e fa!iliarit$ with the histor$ and philosoph$ of their su&+ect in order to teach it well#

 &ut also the$ need it in order to appraise the "arious edicts# policies and curricula that the$ are

asked to i!ple!ent. *his re!inder is especiall$ ti!el$ %i"en the influence of constructi"is!#with its freuent co!!it!ent to contentious# if not plain false# theses in philosoph$ of science.

Radical Constructivist Theory 

,3

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

11/22

@rnst "on ;lasersfeld has had %reat influence on the de"elop!ent of constructi"ist theor$ in

!athe!atics and science education in the past decade. 6e has pu&lished well o"er one hundred papers# &ook chapters and &ooks in fields such as !athe!atics and science education#

c$&ernetics# se!antics and episte!olo%$. 6is !a+or papers are %athered to%ether in his The

3onstr$ction of 6nowledge (,-2>).

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

12/22

e"ents# e5periences). . . . ?o%icall$# that %i"es us no clue as to how the 0o&+ecti"e0 world

!i%ht &e7 it !erel$ !eans that we know one "ia&le wa$ to a %oal that we ha"e chosen

under specific circu!stances in our e5periential world. It tells us nothin%. . . a&out how!an$ other wa$s there !i%ht &e. (;lasersfeld ,-2># p. ,--)

*his supports the fore%oin% delineation and su%%ests a further thesis i!plicit in the for!er state!ent:

>) *here is no preferred episte!ic conceptual structure7 constructi"is! is a relati"ist doctrine.

'nd finall$# in a !o"e that !an$ idealists &efore hi! ha"e !ade# "on ;lasersfeld proceeds fro!

an episte!olo%ical position to an ontolo%ical one:

Radical constructi"is!# thus# is radical &ecause it &reaks with con"ention and de"elops a

theor$ of knowled%e in which knowled%e does not reflect an 0o&+ecti"e0 ontolo%ical

realit$# &ut e5clusi"el$ an orderin% and or%ani9ation of a world constituted &$ our 

e5perience. *he radical constructi"ist has relinuished 0!etaph$sical realis!0 once andfor all. (;lasersfeld ,-2># p. ,--)

*his clai! su%%ests two further constituti"e theses of

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

13/22

at an o&+ect and askin% how well his or her e5perience or sensations reflects the nature or essence

of the o&+ect# is uintessentiall$ 'ristotelian# or !ore %enerall$ e!piriciste"en if the conclusion

is that sensor$ e5perience does not reflect properties of o&+ects at all. 'ristotelians were directrealists a&out perception7 that is# the o&+ects of perception were !aterial &odies. ?ater e!piricists

were lar%el$ indirect realists7 that is the o&+ects of perception were sense i!pressions %enerated#

it was supposed# &$ !aterial o&+ects. ?ocke# an a"owed opponent of 'ristotle# puts the !atter this wa$ in his 0ssay: 0*he !ind# in all its thou%hts and reasonin%s# hath no other i!!ediate

o&+ect &ut its own ideas# which it alone does or can conte!plate.0

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

14/22

constructi"ist writin%. ?er!an speaks for !an$ when he sa$s# of these two theses# that 0the

connections &etween h$pothesis (,) and (4) see! to &e uite stron%0 (,-2-# p. 4,4).

6owe"er# this conclusion onl$ follows on the assu!ption that the e!piricist tradition has

correctl$ delineated the pro&le! of knowled%e. If one re+ects the assu!ption that the pro&le! of 

knowled%e arises when a su&+ect looks at an o&+ect and wonders whether his or her !entalrepresentation corresponds to the o&+ect# then none of the sceptical conclusions of radical

constructi"is! follow. /one!piricist theories of knowled%e are not su&+ect to this sceptical

ar%u!ent.

3onf$sion of Theoretical and Real /,ects of Science 

'nother funda!ental# &ut related# pro&le! is that

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

15/22

It has &een stressed earlier that science has a creati"e and constructi"e di!ension: this is the

 production of the theoretical discourse of science# the positin% or adoptin% of a conceptualfoundation and the ela&oration of a conceptual sche!e.

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

16/22

Fro! the constructi"ist point of "iew. . . lan%ua%e users !ust indi"iduall$ constr$ct the

!eanin% of words# phrases# sentences# and te5ts. /eedless to sa$# this se!anticconstruction does not alwa$s ha"e to start fro! scratch. Once a certain a!ount of 

"oca&ular$ and co!&inatorial rules (0s$nta50) ha"e &een &uilt up in interaction with

speakers of the particular lan%ua%e# these patterns can &e used to lead a learner to for!no"el co!&inations and# thus# no"el conceptual co!pounds. Aut the &asic ele!ents out

of which an indi"idual8s conceptual structures are co!posed and the relations &$ !eans

of which the$ are held to%ether cannot &e transferred fro! one lan%ua% user to another. .. the$ !ust &e a&stracted fro! indi"idual e5perience. (;lasersfeld ,-2-# p. ,G4)

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

17/22

(=a"$do" ,--3# p. ,>-)

*he inherentl$ social and conceptual di!ension of e5perience asserted &$

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

18/22

the core weakness of

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

19/22

no e5trae5periential realit$# or# if atheis! a&out the world is eschewed# then a%nosticis! at least

takes its place. # p.

,,G)

In his ,--4 inter"iew# when asked a&out constructi"is! and realit$# he replied:

*he !ain difficult$ of the uestion arises fro! the word 0e5ist.0 In our hu!an usa%e# it

!eans to ha"e so!e location in space# or ti!e# or &oth. Aut since space and ti!e are our e5periential constructs# 0to e5ist0 has no !eanin% outside the field of our e5perience# and

whate"er an independent ontolo%ical realit$ !a$ do# it is not so!ethin% we can "isuali9e

or understand. (;lasersfeld ,--4# p. ,>D).

*hese clai!s a&out realis! are i!portant &oth for philosoph$ and for science education.

hether or not the scientific world "iew purports to tell us a&out realit$ affects curriculu!

decisions and how we teach. It affects the rationale we %i"e oursel"es# parents# societ$ andstudents for initiatin% children into the acti"ities and conceptual sche!es of science7 and affects

the !oti"ation students ha"e for learnin% science. *he issue# which will &e addressed in the ne5t

chapter# is of %reat conseuence for other pro&le!s# such as teachin% science in nonestern and!ulticultural situations.

Constructivism and Relativism 

Constructi"ist episte!olo%$ is frau%ht with %ra"e educational and cultural i!plications that

are seldo! thou%ht throu%h. Constructi"is! leads directl$ to relati"is!s of all kinds# and not +ustin science. Clearl$ lots of different thin%s can !ake sense to people# and people can disa%ree

a&out whether a particular proposition !akes sense to the! or does not !ake sense. *he wa$s in

which a proposition can !ake sense are independent of the reference of the proposition7 !attersa&out the truth of a proposition are not so li&eral# the$ depend upon how the world is.

Conseuentl$ 0!akin% sense0 is a "er$ unsta&le plank with which to prop up curriculu!

 proposals and ad+udicate de&ates a&out curriculu! content.

,-

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

20/22

Further!ore# !ost scientific ad"ances ha"e entailed co!!it!ent to propositions that literall$

defied senseCopernicus8s rotatin% earth# ;alileo8s point !asses and colorless &odies# /ewton8s

inertial s$ste!s that in principle cannot &e e5perienced and also his ideas of action at a distance#=arwin8s %radualist e"olutionar$ assu!ptions so at odds with the fossil record# @instein8s !ass

ener%$ eui"alence and so forth. Indeed# the topic of pendulu! !otion# as we ha"e seen# e5hi&its

the pro&le!s with usin% 0sense0 as a %oal and ar&iter in science education. In the theoreticalo&+ect of classical !echanics# the &o& at its hi%hest point is &oth at rest and acceleratin% with the

acceleration of %ra"it$# at its lowest point it is !o"in% with !a5i!u! speed in a tan%ential

direction# $et its acceleration is "erticall$ upwards. /either of these propositions !akesi!!ediate sense# $et the$ are conseuences of the ph$sical theor$ that allows construction of the

 pendulu! clock and successful predictions to &e !ade a&out the &eha"ior of the real# !aterial

o&+ects that constitute pendulu!s. ithin the theor$ of circular !otion the propositions 0!ake

sense.0 Aut the theor$ does not e!er%e fro! sensations7 and not onl$ is it not tracea&le toe5perience# it contradicts i!!ediate e5perience# and is onl$ rou%hl$ in accord with refined#

e5peri!ental e5perience. *his is wh$ olpert a!on% others co!!ents that 0if so!ethin% fits in

with co!!on sense it al!ost certainl$ isn8t science. . . the wa$ in which the uni"erse works is

not the wa$ in which co!!on sense works0 (olpert ,--4# p. ,,).

If the conceptual sche!es of science purport to &e a&out the real world# and if the$ areintended to !ake true state!ents a&out the world# it is !ore likel$ that the effort necessar$ to

chan%e students8 scientific !isconceptions will &e !ade and financed. If science is not a&out the

real world# or is not thou%ht to &e true in an$ serious sense# then it &eco!es difficult to +ustif$atte!pts to chan%e students8 understandin%s and &eliefs when such chan%e is at the cost of their 

selfconfidence# is in opposition to the feelin%s of their parents# or is in conflict with i!portant

cultural "alues. *he copes *rial# and the conte!porar$ de&ate o"er creationis! in schools#

hi%hli%ht these issues.

Flowin% directl$ fro! constructi"is!8s indi"idualistic e!piricis! is the ne%lect of the

inherentl$ social aspect of scientific de"elop!ent. It is not +ust that indi"iduals are dependentupon others for their lan%ua%e and conceptual furniture# &ut as far as science is concerned# the

%rowth of scientific understandin% %oes hand in hand with initiation into a scientific tradition# a

tradition within which point !asses and instantaneous accelerations !ake sense. ' "alua&letradition is passed on# not rein"ented &$ each %eneration. *here are serious educational uestions

 posed &$ the &usiness of selectin% those aspects of a tradition worth$ of trans!ission# and the

 processes where&$ the$ are passed on. Aut these uestions onl$ arise and can &e addressed if this

apprenticeship di!ension of education is reco%ni9ed. u&+ecti"e# or ps$cholo%ical#constructi"is! onl$ di!l$ reco%ni9es this. ocial constructi"is! sees it !ore clearl$# &ut then

needs to address the episte!olo%ical or nor!ati"e ele!ents in the social construction of 

knowled%e.

Children8s thou%hts are pri"ate# &ut their concepts are pu&lic. hether or not particular 

thou%hts are %oin% to constitute knowled%e is not a !atter for the indi"idual to deter!ine7 or rather# if the$ do so deter!ine# then it is a%ainst a pu&lic standard. *eachers !ediate &etween

students and this pu&lic standard. ithout such pu&lic criteria# the word 0knowled%e0 is

reduci&le to 0&elief.0 hat constitutes knowled%e and what !akes so!ethin% knowled%e are

issues of %reat episte!olo%ical and political i!portance. On the facile# personal# constructi"ist

43

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

21/22

"iew of knowled%e# these uestions e"aporate. For social constructi"is! the$ also e"aporate# &ut

 +ust !ore slowl$: hat will &e the social %roup whose a%ree!ent will constitute so!e

 proposition as knowled%eL

till further# these constructi"ist ideas ha"e "er$ !i5ed conseuences for culture. 'll cultures

 &uild up traditions and understandin%s# so!e of which are worth$ of &ein% passed on. *raditionis the hall!ark of a health$ culture. @ach new %eneration should not ha"e to start co!pletel$

anew the task of !akin% !eanin%. @5tre!e constructi"is! !akes tradition nu%ator$. *he histor$

of science pla$s a !inor# if an$# part in constructi"ist curriclar proposals.

On the other hand# it is notorious that people ha"e for centuries thou%ht that the %rossest

in+ustices and the %reatest e"ils ha"e all !ade sense. *he su&+ection of wo!en to !en has# and

still does# !ake perfectl$ %ood sense to !illions of people and to scores of societies7e5plainin%illness in ter!s of possession &$ e"il spirits !akes perfectl$ %ood sense to countless !illions7 the

intellectual inferiorit$ of particular races is perfectl$ sensi&le to !illions of people# includin%

so!e of the !ost ad"anced thinkers7 to "er$ sophisticated ;er!ans it !ade sense to re%ard

Jewish people as su&hu!ans and to institute e5ter!ination pro%ra!s for the!7 apartheid !adesense to outh 'fricans# +ust as racial discri!ination did to citi9ens until "er$ recentl$. *he

list of atrocities and stupidities that ha"e !ade perfect sense at so!e ti!e or other# or in so!e place or other# is endless. It see!s clear that the appeal to sense is not %oin% to &e sufficient to

refute such "iews. Aut the appeal to truth# or ri%ht# which is independent of hu!an desires or 

 power# !a$ &e a&le to o"erturn such opinions and practices. Certainl$ the interests of the less powerful and !ar%inali9ed are not ad"anced &$ cha!pionin% the "iew that power is truth7

!inorit$ ri%hts ha"e alwa$s &een &etter ad"anced &$ holdin% on to the "iew that truth is power.

*he relati"is! and su&+ecti"is! of constructi"is! are particularl$ illsuited to deal with theco!ple5# transsocial pro&le!s facin% the conte!porar$ world. *here is a need for the sustained

application of reason and the re+ection of selfinterest in the atte!pt to deal with pressin%

en"iron!ental# political and social uestionsthink of the political situation in 'frica or theAalkans. arl Popper reco%nised this sociall$ corrosi"e aspect of constructi"is!# when he said:

*he &elief of a li&eral K the &elief in the possi&ilit$ of a rule of law# of eual +ustice# of funda!ental ri%hts# and a free societ$can easil$ sur"i"e the reco%nition that +ud%es are

not o!niscient and !a$ !ake !istakes a&out facts. . . . Aut the &elief in the possi&ilit$ of 

a rule of law# of +ustice# and of freedo!# can hardl$ sur"i"e the acceptance of an

episte!olo%$ which teaches that there are no o&+ecti"e facts7 not !erel$ in this particular case# &ut in an$ other case. (Popper ,-HG# p. )

Conclusion 

*his chapter has %i"en an indication of the enor!ous i!pact of ps$cholo%ical constructi"is!on the theor$ and practice of conte!porar$ science education. It has drawn attention to the

e5plicit episte!olo%ical and ontolo%ical clai!s !ade &$ ad"ocates of constructi"is!# and in

 particular &$ @rnst "on ;lasersfeld. *he %eneral conclusion reached has &een that# inas!uch as

there are ar%u!ents ad"anced for the episte!olo%ical and ontolo%ical positions# the$ are weak 

4,

8/18/2019 2. matthews2

22/22

ar%u!ents. Constructi"is! a!ounts to a restate!ent of standard e!piricist theor$ of science# and

suffers all the wellknown faults of that theor$. 's !entioned at the &e%innin% of this chapter#

so!e constructi"ists adopt a "ersion of social constructi"is! so as to a"oid so!e of the pro&le!sassociated with su&+ecti"e or ps$cholo%ical constructi"is!. Aut this !o"e +ust dela$s the da$ of 

episte!olo%ical reckonin%. hose %roup will &e +ud%ed correct in its knowled%eL

6owe"er# the interacti"e# antido%!atic teachin% practices supported &$ constructi"is! need

not &e a&andoned.