This paper aims at shedding light on what students can “construct” when they learn science and how this construction process may be supported. Constructivism is a pluralist theory of science education. As a consequence, I support, there are several points of view concerning this construction process. Firstly, I stress that constructivism is rooted in two fields, psychology of cognitive development and epistemology, which leads to two ways of describing the construction process: either as a process of enrichment and/or reorganization of the cognitive structures at the mental level, or as a process of building or development of models or theories at the symbolic level. Secondly, I argue that the usual distinction between “personal constructivism” (PC) and “social constructivism” (SC) originates in a difference of model of reference: the one of PC is Piaget’s description of “spontaneous” concepts, assumed to be constructed by students on their own when interacting with their material environment, the one of SC is Vygotsky’s description of scientific concepts, assumed to be introduced by the teacher by means of verbal communication. Thirdly, I support the idea that, within SC, there are in fact two trends: one, in line with Piaget’s work, demonstrates how cooperation among students affects the development of each individual’s cognitive structures; the other, in line with Vygotsky’s work, claims that students can understand and master new models only if they are introduced to the scientific culture by their teacher. Fourthly, I draw attention to the process of “problem construction” identified by some French authors. Finally, I advocate for an integrated approach in science education, taking into account all the facets of science learning and teaching mentioned above and emphasizing their differences as well as their interrelations. Some suggestions intended to improve the efficiency of science teaching are made.

Key words: science learning science teaching, personal constructivism, social constructivism, cooperation, enculturation, problem construction.

Advocates of constructivist science recommend that school science begins with children’s own constructions of reality. This notion of the way in which students’ knowledge of science grows is closely paralleled by recent research on teachers’ knowledge. This paper draws on case study evidence of teachers’ work to show how two experienced teachers’ attempts to develop alternative ways of teaching science involved reframing their previous patterns of understanding and practice. Two alternative interpretations of the case study evidence are offered. One interpretation, which focuses on identifying gaps in the teachers’ knowledge of science teaching, leads to theconstructivist paradox. The second interpretation explores theconstructivist parallel, an approach which treats the process of teachers’ knowledge growth with the same respect as constructivists treat students’ learning of science. This approach, the authors argue, is not only more epistemologically consistent but also opens up the possibilities of helping teachers lead students towards a constructivist school science.

The paper outlines the significant influence of constructivism in contemporary science and mathematics education, and emphasises the central role that epistemology plays in constructivist theory and practice. It is claimed that despite the anti-empiricism of much constructivist writing, in most forms its epistemology is nevertheless firmly empiricist. In particular it is subject-centered and experience-based. It is argued that its relativist, if not skeptical conclusions, only follow given these empiricist assumptions. Further it is suggested that such assumptions belong to Aristotelian science, and were effectively overthrown with the modern science of Galileo and Newton. Thus constructivism cannot provide understanding of post-Aristotelian science.

This study aimed to explore pre-service chemistry teachers’ beliefs about constructivism and the influence of their beliefs in their teaching practice. For this purpose, semi-structured interviews were carried out with eight pre-service teachers in order to understand their belief structures. Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about constructivism were classified in three categories which are weak, moderate, and strong conceptions of constructivism. For detailed exploration, three cases of pre-service teachers representing these three categories were selected. The findings of this study showed that most pre-service teachers in this study did not have a strong conception of constructivism and the relationship between the pre-service teachers’ beliefs and their practice was not clear-cut.

Key words: teacher beliefs, science teacher education, teaching practice, constructivism, pre-service teachers.