Constructivist ideas have had a major influence on science educators over the last decade. In this report a model describing possible student responses during science lessons is outlined, and a rationale for it is provided on the basis of both constructivist theory and tests of the model in middle school science classes. The study therefore explores a way to analyze and describe learning derived from both constructivist theoretical considerations and classroom practice. The model was tested in a series of science lessons, resulting in several revisions. The final version explained in this report is therefore consistent with the science lesson contexts explored and the theoretical constructs which underlie it. The lessons were conducted in three classes of 11- to 13-year-olds in provincial cities in Queensland, Australia. Students were mostly of Caucasian extraction, in mixed-ability and mixed-gender classes. Three students from each class were interviewed individually immediately following each of the three lessons, for a total of 27 interviews. The interviews, videotapes of lessons, and field notes were used as data sources. The final version of the model proved to be fairly robust in describing students’ cognitive progress through the lessons. This study has resulted in a model for science lessons which allows the identification and description of students’ cognitive progress through the lessons. By using this focus on the learner, it provides preknowledge for teachers about how students might arrive at solutions to science problems during lessons, and therefore potentially provides indications about appropriate teaching strategies.

Constructivism is a theory of learning, which claims that students construct knowledge rather than merely receive and store knowledge transmitted by the teacher. Constructivism has been extremely influential in science and mathematics education, but much less so in computer science education (CSE). This paper surveys constructivism in the context of CSE, and shows how the theory can supply a theoretical basis for debating issues and evaluating proposals. An analysis of constructivism in computer science education leads to two claims: (a) students do not have an effective model of a computer, and (b) computers form an accessible ontological reality. The conclusions from these claims are that: (a) models must be explicitly taught, (b) models must be taught before abstractions, and (c) the seductive reality of the computer must not be allowed to supplant construction of models.

Key words: computer science education, dominant theory, idiosyncratic version, accessible ontological reality, ective model, theoretical basis, seductive reality, store knowledge, mathematics education

Crowther illuminates the meaning of “constructivism” as it relates to science education, and offers some resources for people to review to come to a better understanding for themselves and to learn the implications that constructivism may have on their own teaching methodology. Constructivism means that as people experience something new they internalize it through past experiences or knowledge constructs that have been previously established.

Frameworks that seek to understand how knowledge restructuring occurs and how to build a learning environment that facilitates this restructuring raise important philosophical, psychological and pedagogical questions and issues about how conceptual change occurs and what characteristics of knowledge growth ought to be a part of curricula and learning environments. Implicit in emphasizing the how is a shift in science educations’ perspective from one that embraces “scientists’ ways of knowing” as the dominant objective towards one that favors “positioning the learner for the next step.” This change in perspective and approach represents a radical and complex departure from common practice. This article advances a piecemeal model of the character and mechanism of restructuring and then describes a model of educational practice designed to facilitate this form of restructuring. We argue that a piecemeal developmental perspective of conceptual change would offer quite different criteria for deciding what to teach and how to teach. The adoption of conceptual change teaching models implies teacher empowerment of a kind we have yet to fully understand. Empowering teachers with appropriate philosophical and psychological models for the selection and the sequencing of instructional tasks would aid in their describing and prescribing effective or meaningful learning strategies. Central to this educational model is a broadened and integrated view of assessment and instruction that we are calling a portfolio culture. The essential characteristic of this culture is that it creates opportunities for teachers and students to confront and develop their scientific understanding and to equip students with the tools necessary to take increased responsibility for their own restructuring, to assess for themselves what might be the next steps.

O’Loughlin critiqued Piagetian constructivism and urged that science educators adopt a sociocultural constructivism in its place. The central thesis of this response is that Piaget’s revisions of his theory in the 10 years prior to his death offer a new model of equilibration that is contemporary and helpful as we rethink science education. Further, it is argued that decentering is an important human attribute – a necessary aspect of the scientific process. The sociocultural model is critiqued as nihilistic, culturally relative, and dangerous when placed in the context of real science classrooms.

The purpose of this study was to learn whether Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) or more recent interpretations of the learning cycle could be used by teachers to engage students in social constructivist learning. To accomplish this purpose, two university researchers and six science teachers planned, implemented, and reflected upon instruction based on the reciprocal use of language and action within the learning cycle framework. The study examined teachers’ changing beliefs and practices as well as issues and problems that emerged. Discrepant case analysis was used to analyze the data, which included transcriptions of instruction, reflection sessions, and teacher and student interviews as well as copies of teachers’ written plans and instructional materials. In this paper, we present a case study of one teacher and profiles of five others. The case is organized chronologically and describes Martha, a high school physics teacher, in terms of her instruction and concerns at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year. Analysis revealed that several of Martha’s beliefs and practices gradually changed across the year. Martha initially expressed the positivistic view that the goal of science instmction was for students to arrive at scientifically acceptable conclusions. As Martha explored social constructivist teaching, she gave her students increasingly more opportunities to test and discuss their ideas during problem solving. Along with this change in practice, Martha experienced a tension between her efforts to give her students opportunities to develop their own understandings and her efforts to present scientific information. As Martha’ perspective changed, she became dissatisfied with her existing grading system. Like Martha, each of the other five teachers gave their students more opportunities to explore their own ideas and each experienced tensions in the process. We interpreted these findings within a social constructivist theoretical framework to suggest changes in the learning cycle.

Excerpt: In this issue is a commentary defending “Piagetian” constructivism against attacks from sociocultural constructivists. Fosnot critiques an earlier article by O’Loughlin and points out that Piaget’s later work differs from his pre-1970s writing. The articles are instructive in many ways, showing that we tend to see what we are looking for in educational issues.

Constructivist science education typically presents a relativist image of scientific knowledge that is not shared by scientists. Truth and time are defined differently by scientists than by postmodern observers of science; a theoretical definition of truth is often applied to scientific knowledge within science education, whereas a practical definition, supported by evidence, is used within science. Similarly, time is sometimes taken out of context within science education when scientific concepts that have developed slowly and are well accepted by scientists are treated as though they were tentative.