In this article, I introduce Robert Brandom’s inferentialism as an alternative to common representational interpretations of constructivism in science education. By turning our attention away from the representational role of conceptual contents and toward the norms governing their use in inferences, we may interpret knowledge as a capacity to engage in a particular form of social activity, the game of giving and asking for reasons. This capacity is not readily reduced to a diagrammatic structure defining the knowledge to be acquired. By considering the application of these ideas to the concept of electrical current and the use of analogies in science education, I hope to illustrate how they may be given practical employment as the child comes to explore within the concepts derived from historical scientific endeavours and not merely meander through her individual experiences of scientific phenomena themselves. In moving away from the representational role of analogy, our focus shifts from the quality of the analogy itself toward the quality of the discourse utilising the analogy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
The emphasis here is on how one sentence is taken to justify use of another and thus to constitute a valid inference. As discussed in Section 3.1, we are concerned with material inferences and not merely inferences valid by virtue of their logical form.
Technically, it also depends upon what propositions it is appropriate to draw this inference from, but we shall keep our analysis simple.
Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1995). Reflections on a fifth-grade life science lesson: making sense of children’s understanding of scientific models. International Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 59–74.
Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006). Metaphor and analogy. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education (pp. 1–9). Dordecht: Springer.
Bächtold, M. (2013). What do students “construct” according to constructivism in science education? Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2477–2496.
Bakker, A., & Derry, J. (2011). Lessons from inferentialism for statistics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(1–2), 5–26.
Blanchette, I., & Dunbar, K. (2000). How analogies are generated: the roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 108–124.
Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. London: Harvard University Press.
Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons: an introduction to inferentialism. London: Harvard University Press.
Brandom, R. (2007). Inferentialism and some of its challenges. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74(3), 651–676.
Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198.
Derry, J. (2008). Abstract rationality in education: from Vygotsky to Brandom. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(1), 49–62.
Derry, J. (2013). Vygotsky philosophy and education. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Derry, J. 2017. An introduction to inferentialism in mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13394-017-0193-7. Accessed 15 Aug 2017.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Dunbar, K. 2001. What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of cognition. In: Crowley, K., Schunn, C.D., & Okada, T. (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Psychology Press, pp. 103–116.
Dunne, J. (2005). An intricate fabric: Understanding the rationality of practice. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 13(3), 367–390.
Fodor, J., & Lepore, E. (2001). Brandom’s burdens: compositionality and inferentialism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(2), 465–481.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D. R., & Gentner, D. (2014). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental Model (pp. 99–127). New York: Psychology Press.
Gil-Pérez, D., Guisasola, J., Moreno, A., Cachapuz, A., Pessoa de Carvalho, A. M., Martínez Torregrosa, J., Salinas, J., Valdés, P., González, E., Gené Duch, A., Dumas-Carré, A., Tricarico, H., & Gallego, R. (2002). Defending constructivism in science education. Science & Education, 11(6), 557–571.
Haglund, J. (2013). Collaborative and self-generated analogies in science education. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 35–68.
Harrison, A. G. (2006). The affective dimension of analogy. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education (pp. 51–63). Dordecht: Springer.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Teaching and learning with analogies: friend or foe? In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education (pp. 11–24). Dordecht: Springer.
Hesse, M. B. (1966). Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Heywood, D. (2002). The place of analogies in science education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 233–247.
Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (2009). The role of analogies in learning. In D. Heywood & J. Parker (Eds.), The Pedagogy of Physical Science (pp. 39–64). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Marabini, A., & Moretti, L. (2017). Assessing concept possession as an explicit and social practice. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(4), 801–816.
Matthews, M. R. (1993). Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(1), 359–370.
Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: a further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121–134.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 141–159). New York: Routledge.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.
Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: a theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849–877.
Noddings, N. (1990). Constructivism in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 4, 7–210.
Noorloos, R., Taylor, S. D., Bakker, A., & Derry, J. (2017). Inferentialism as an alternative to socioconstructivism in mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(4), 437–453.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2007). Theoretical origins of concept maps, how to construct them, and uses in education. Reflecting Education, 3(1), 29–42.
Ogborn, J. (1997). Constructivist metaphors of learning science. Science & Education, 6, 121–133.
Osborne, J. F. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80(1), 53–82.
Peregrin, J. (2014). Inferentialism: why rules matter. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pittman, K. M. (1999). Student-generated analogies: Another way of knowing? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 1–22.
Prien, B. (2010). Robert Brandom on communication, reference, and objectivity. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 18(3), 433–458.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ryle, G. (1945). Knowing how and knowing that: the presidential address. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, volume 46. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–16.
Schindler, M., Hußmann, S., Nilsson, P., & Bakker, A. (2017). Sixth-grade students’ reasoning on the order relation of integers as influenced by prior experience: an inferentialist analysis. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(4), 471–492.
Schwedes, H., & Dudeck, W. G. (1996). Teaching electricity by help of a water analogy (how to cope with the need for conceptual change). In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: current issues and themes (pp. 50–63). London: The Falmer Press.
Sellars, W. (1953). Inference and meaning. Mind, 62(247), 313–338.
Taylor, S. D., Noorloos, R., & Bakker, A. (2017). Mastering as an inferentialist alternative to the acquisition and participation metaphors for learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(4), 769–784.
von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). The radical constructivist view of science. Foundations of Science, 6(1), 31–43.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1939). Thought and speech. Psychiatry, 2(1), 29–54.
Williams, J. J., & Brandom, R. (2013). Inferential man: an interview with Robert Brandom. Symplokē, 21(1–2), 367–391.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
I would like to thank Professor Jan Derry for introducing me to many of the ideas discussed in this article and for her invaluable assistance in its preparation.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Causton, E. Bringing Inferentialism to Science Education. Sci & Educ 28, 25–43 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00027-3