Niaz M., Abd-El-Khalick F., Benarroch A., Cardellini L., Laburú C. E., Marín N., Montes L. A., Nola R., Orlik Y., Scharmann L. C. & Tsai C. C. (2003) Constructivism: Defense or a Continual Critical Appraisal. A Response to Gil-Pérez et al. Science & Education 12: 787–797. Fulltext at https://cepa.info/4030
Constructivism: Defense or a Continual Critical Appraisal. A Response to Gil-Pérez et al.
Science & Education 12: 787–797.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/4030
This commentary is a critical appraisal of Gil-Pérez et al. ‘s (2002) conceptualization of constructivism. It is argued that the following aspects of their presentation are problematic: (a) Although the role of controversy is recognized, the authors implicitly subscribe to a Kuhnian perspective of `normal’ science; (b) Authors fail to recognize the importance of von Glasersfeld’s contribution to the understanding of constructivism in science education; (c) The fact that it is not possible to implement a constructivist pedagogy without a constructivist epistemology has been ignored; and (d) Failure to recognize that the metaphor of the `student as a developing scientist’ facilitates teaching strategies as students are confronted with alternative/rival/conflicting ideas. Finally, we have shown that constructivism in science education is going through a process of continual critical appraisals.