Constructivism

Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching

Bibliographic Data

ID10204891
AuthorsJohn R Staver (Kansas State University, corresponding author)
Year1998
Volume35
Issue5
Pages501-520
Publication date1998-05-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Research in Science Teaching (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-4308 • E-ISSN: 1098-2736
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199805)35:5<501::aid-tea3>3.0.co;2-t
OpenAlexW2059878786
LanguageEN
Citations received13

Critics praise applications of constructivism in science pedagogy, but they argue that constructivism is severely impaired and hopelessly flawed as a theory. Flawed theory should not be employed to explain innovative practice. My purposes are twofold. First and foremost, I present a case to support my own and others' assertions that constructivism is a sound theory with which to explain the practice of science and science pedagogy. In accomplishing my primary purpose, I also fulfill my secondary purpose, to respond to constructivism's critics. My argument is presented in three parts. In Part 1, I delineate the epistemological ground with a brief synopsis of the purpose, nature, and orientation of radical and social constructivism. I then offer a synthesis of their foundations. In Part 2, I offer a constructivist account of five long-standing epistemological issues, including truth, solipsism, experience, instrumentalism, and relativity. Truth is the center piece of the argument, and I show how constructivism avoids the root paradox by embracing truth as coherence. Next, constructivism is shown to be a rejection of solipsism. Then, an account of experience based in neurophysiological theory, emergent properties, and the brain as a parallel data-processing organ is provided to support constructivism's inside-out view of experience, in which meaning making occurs within individual minds and in communities of individuals. In the final segment of Part 2, I present a constructivist account of relativity which focuses on physicists' acceptance of relativity, its translation to constructivist epistemology, and constructivists' request for silence regarding ontology. Response to critics' objections are also presented at appropriate points throughout Part 2. In the third part, I present constructivism as an epistemological foundation for a cybernetic perspective of knowing. I then summarize the value of constructivism in explaining and interpreting the practice of science and science pedagogy. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 35: 501–520, 1998

Argument (complex analysis · Constructivism (international relations · Solipsism · Cognitive Science and Education Research · Philosophy and History of Science · Science Education and Pedagogy

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub