Abstract
Some voices have recently begun to question the constructivist positions, which have been considered the most important contribution of the last decades in science education. It could be thought then, that the“constructivist consensus” might just be a new fashion that would once again lead us back to the immovable reception model of science learning. This questions, at the same time, the idea of an advance in the field of science education towards the construction of a coherent body of knowledge.
However, these criticisms are frequently focused on the contributions of authors, such as Glaserfeld or Kelly, none of whom have worked in science education. We believe this is misleading, because it denies the possibility for science education to give way to a specific body of knowledge and reduces its theoretical bases to the application of external knowledge. The goal of this work is to analyse some of the current criticisms to the constructivist orientations in science education, without entering into other philosophical or psychological debates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bachelard, G.,(1938). La Formation de l’Esprit Scientifique. Vrin, Paris.
Bell, B.F & Pearson, J.,(1992). ‘Better Learning’. International Journal of Science Education, 14(3), 349–361.
Burbules, N & Linn, M. (1991). Science Education and Philosophy of Science: Congruence or Contradiction? International journal of Science Education, 13 (3), 227–241.
Désautels, J., Larochelle, M., Gagné, B. & Ruel, F. (1993). La Formation À l’Enseignement des Sciences: le Virage Épistémologique, Didaskalia, 1, 49–67
Driver, R. & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and Paradigms: A Review of Literature Related to Concept Development in Adolescent Science Students. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37–70.
Duschl, R. & Gitomer, D. (1991). Epistemological Perspectives on Conceptual Change: Implications for Educational Practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (9), 839 – 858.
Fraser, B. & Tobin, K.G. (eds.), (1998). International Handbook of Science Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.
Furió, C., & Gil, D,.(1978). El Programa-Guía: Una Propuesta Para la Renovación de la Didáctica de la Físicay Química. Ice de la Universidad de Valencia.
Gabel, D.L. (ed.) (1994). Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. MacMillan Pub. Co. N.Y.
Gil-Pérez, D. (1996). New Trends in Science Education, International journal of Science Education, 18 (8), 889–901.
Gil-Pérez, D. & Carrascosa, J,.(1985). Science Learning as a Conceptual and Methodological Change, European Journal of Science Education, 7 (3), 231–236.
Guilbert, L. & Meloche, D. (1993). L’idée de Science Chez des Enseignants en Formation: Un Lien Entre L’histoire des Sciences et l’Hétérogénéité des Visions. Didaskalia, 2, 7–30.
Hodson, D.(1992). In Search of a Meaningful Relationship: An Exploration of Some Issues Relating to Integration in Science and Science Education. International Journal Of Science Education, 14(5), 541–566.
Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic Stance of Secondary School Science Teachers, Curriculum Experiences, and Children’s Understanding of Science: Some Preliminary Findings. Interchange, 24(1&u2), 41–52.
Jenkins, E.W. (2000). Constructivism in School Science Education: Powerful Model or the Most Dangerous Intellectual Tendency? Science & Education, 9, 599–610.
Kelly, G. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Norton, New York.
Matthews, M.R. (2000). ‘Editorial’ of the Monographic Issue on Constructivism, Epistemology and the Learning of Science. Science & Education, 9, 491–505.
McComas, W.F. (ed.), (1998). The Nature of Science in Science Education. Rationales and Strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
National Research Council, (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington, Dc.
Osborne, J.F. (1996). Beyond Constructivism. Science Education, 80(1), 53–82.
Osborne, R. & Wittrock, M. (1983). Learning Science: A Generative Process. Science Education, 67, 490–508.
Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. (1998). Bibliography: Students’ Alternative Frameworks and Science Education. Institute for Science Education, Kiel.
Piaget, J. (1971). Psicologia y Epistemologia. Ariel, Barcelona.
Posner, G.J., Strike, Hewson & C Gertzog (1982). Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Towards a Theory of Conceptual Change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Resnick, L.B. (1983). Mathematics and Science Learning: A New Conception, Science, 220, 477 – 478.
Solomon, J. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Constructivism. Studies in Science Education, 23, 1–19.
Suchting, W.A. (1992). Constructivism Deconstructed, Science & Education, 1(3), 223–254.
Tiberghien, A., Jossem, E. & Barojas, J. (1998). Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education. I.C.P.E Book, International Commission on Physics Education.
Viennot, L. (1996). Raisonner en Physique. La Part du Sens Commun, De Boeck & Larcier S.A., Paris & Bruxelles.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gil-Pérez, D. (2003). Constructivism in Science Education: The Need for a Clear Line of Demarcation. In: Psillos, D., Kariotoglou, P., Tselfes, V., Hatzikraniotis, E., Fassoulopoulos, G., Kallery, M. (eds) Science Education Research in the Knowledge-Based Society. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0165-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0165-5_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6337-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0165-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive