8/2/2019 Whither constructivism

1/18

This article was published in an Elsevier journal. The attached copy

is furnished to the author for non-commercial research and

education use, including for instruction at the authors institution,

sharing with colleagues and providing to institution administration.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or

licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the

article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or

institutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are

encouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyright

8/2/2019 Whither constructivism

2/18

Author's personal copy

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 400416

Whither constructivism?A chemistry teachers perspective

Mansoor Niaz

Epistemology of Science Group, Department of Chemistry, Universidad de Oriente, Apartado Postal 90, Cumana,

Estado Sucre 6101A, Venezuela

Received 30 October 2006; received in revised form 3 October 2007; accepted 30 October 2007

Abstract

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 Masters

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 constructivismas 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?

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Constructivism; Science education; Nature of science; Tentative nature of scientific knowledge

1. Introduction

The decline of positivism during the latter half of

the 20th century facilitated the development of

constructivism in various forms as an alternative

philosophical and educational theory (Louden &

Wallace, 1994). Most science educators would agree

that during the 1970s and the 1980s among other

forms of constructivism, Piagetian and Ausubelian

constructivism played a dominant role. Piagetian

constructivism emphasized the need for goingbeyond expository teaching practice in order to

facilitate development of reasoning based on the

learning cycle. In contrast, Ausubelian constructi-

vism promoted meaningful receptive learning based

on prior knowledge of the students and concept

maps. Since then, constructivism in science educa-

tion has developed in many forms by drawing

inspiration from various philosophical and episte-

mological sources (Geelan, 1997; Good, 1993;

Phillips, 1995). Of the different forms, radical (von

ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

0742-051X/$- see front matterr 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.006

Tel./fax: +58293 4318572.

E-mail address: niazma@cantv.net

http://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyright

8/2/2019 Whither constructivism

3/18

Author's personal copy

Glasersfeld, 1989) and social constructivism

(Glasson & Lalik, 1993; Tobin & LaMaster, 1995)

have enjoyed more popularity with science educa-

tors. For radical and some social constructivists,

experience is the ultimate arbiter for decidingbetween scientific theories and how students acquire

knowledge. Despite the popularity, almost all forms

of constructivism have also been the subject of

scrutiny and critical appraisal (De Berg, 2006;

Geelan, 2006; Kelly, 1997; Matthews, 1993; Niaz,

2001a; Osborne, 1996; Solomon, 1994; Suchting,

1992; Taber, 2006).

An important aspect of the development of

different forms of constructivism in science educa-

tion is the need for a continual critical appraisal.

Early debates (Novak, 1977) provided the stimulus

for this continued progressive development. More

recently, Nola (1997) has emphasized that popular

forms of constructivism (radical and social) will

have to compete and often unfavorably with rival

views. Competition between rival theories, tentative

nature of science and theory ladenness of observa-

tions are important contributions of the newphilosophy of science, which has permeated science

education research (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick,

Bell, & Schwartz, 2002). Tsai (2006) has emphasized

the importance of these aspects of nature of science

for constructivism and teacher training programs.

Fig. 1 provides an outline of the tentative nature of

science in the two domains, viz., atomic structure

and constructivism in science education.

At this stage, it is important to note that the

different forms of constructivism in science education

have as much to do with the different psychological

models of teaching and learning (developmental stage

theory, socio-cultural, motivational perspectives, etc.)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Atomic Structure Constructivism in Science Education

1897 Thomson 1960 Trivial Constructivism (Piaget)

1911 Rutherford 1970 Human Constructivism

(Ausubel, Novak)

1913 Millikan

1913 Bohr 1980 Radical Constructivism

(von Glasersfeld)

1916 Sommerfeld

1924 De Broglie 1990 Social Constructivism

(Vygotsky)

1925 Pauli

1925 Heisenberg 1999 Pragmatic Constructivism

(Perkins)

1926 Schrdinger

1932 Chadwick

1963 Gell-Mann

(Postulating Quarks)

1997 Perl

(Isolating Quarks)

Fig. 1. Tentative Nature of Scientific Theories. Notes: (1) Under Atomic Structure appear the names of prominent scientists who made a

significant contribution towards a greater understanding of atomic structure. Inclusion of these names follows a historical sequence

(markers), indicating the tentative nature of atomic theories; (2) Under Constructivism in Science Education appea