Radical Constructivism—von Glasersfeld

Part of the Springer Texts in Education book series (SPTE)


Radical constructivism was defined by von Glasersfeld as a theory of knowing that provides a pragmatic approach to questions about reality, truth, and human understanding. Radical constructivism draws heavily on Jean Piaget’s constructivism, but also on ideas about epistemology, or how we come to acquire knowledge, from British empiricism, Kant’s idealism, and Saussure’s structuralism, among others. Following Piaget, von Glasersfeld argued that we construct our concepts and our understanding of the world, developmentally. Knowledge is categorized by its viability in the domain of experience, rather than by the traditional philosophical position that it is constitutive of Truth, that is, that it corresponds to an objective reality. The two basic principles of radical constructivism are that knowledge is not passively received through the senses but is actively constructed by the cognizing subject, the learner, and that the function of cognition is organization of the experiential world rather than discovery of an independent reality. This chapter gives an overview of the theory underpinning radical constructivism and explores its implications for science education. It also examines critiques of radical constructivism, such as it neglects the social aspect of cognition and that it leads to an anti-realist stance on science teaching and learning.


Radical constructivism Constructivism Active learning Learning progressions Scientific knowledge Epistemology Mathematics Piaget Genetic epistemology Relativism 


  1. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Disessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. d’Agnese, V. (2015). ‘And they lived happily ever after’: The fairy tale of radical constructivism and von Glasersfeld’s ethical disengagement. Ethics and Education, 10(2), 131–151. Scholar
  4. Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123–182. Scholar
  5. Harding, P., & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in classrooms: Emphasizing open-mindedness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 225–236.;2-G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lerman, S. (1996). Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: A challenge to the radical constructivist paradigm? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 133–150. Scholar
  7. Lorsbach, A. W., & Tobin, K. (1992). Constructivism as a referent for science teaching. In F. Lorenz, K. Cochran, J. Krajcik, & P. Simpson (Eds.), Research matters …to the science teacher. NARST Monograph, Number Five. Manhattan, KS: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  8. Matthews, M. R. (1998). The nature of science and science teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 981–999). Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Matthews, M. R. (2012a). Philosophical and pedagogical problems with constructivism in science education. Tréma, 38, 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. Olssen, M. (1996). Radical constructivism and its failings: Anti-realism and individualism. British Journal of Educational Studies, 44(3), 275–295. Scholar
  12. Quale, A. (2008). Radical constructivism: A relativist epistemic approach to science education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Riegler, A. (2001). Towards a radical constructivist understanding of science. Foundations of Science, 6(1–3), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Riegler, A., & Quale, A. (2010). Can radical constructivism become a mainstream endeavor? Constructivist Foundations, 6(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  15. Slezak, P. (2010). Radical constructivism: Epistemology, education and dynamite. Constructivist Foundations, 6(1), 102–111.Google Scholar
  16. Slezak, P. (2014). Appraising constructivism in science education. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1023–1055). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Steffe, L. P. (2007). Radical constructivism and ‘school mathematics’. In M. Larochelle (Ed.), Key works in radical constructivism (pp. 279–289). Rotterdam: Sense publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Taber, K. S. (2006). Constructivism’s new clothes: The trivial, the contingent, and a progressive research programme into the learning of science. Foundations of Chemistry, 8, 189–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tobin, K. (2007). The revolution that was constructivism. In M. Larochelle (Ed.), Key works in radical constructivism (pp. 291–297). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality (pp. 17–40). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  21. von Glasersfeld, E. (2007). Key works in radical constructivism, M. Larochelle (Ed.). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995a). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London and Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  23. von Glasersfeld, E. (2001a). Radical constructivism and teaching. Prospects, 31(2), 161–173. doi:10.1007/bf03220058.Google Scholar
  24. von Glasersfeld, E. (2001b). The radical constructivist view of science. Foundations of Science, 6(1), 31–43. doi:10.1023/a:1011345023932.Google Scholar
  25. von Glasersfeld, E. (2010). Why people dislike radical constructivism. Constructivist Foundations, 6(1), 19–21.Google Scholar
  26. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 11–27. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations