The aim of the present article is to discover whether Piaget’s empirical work has been assimilated into subsequent studies, which are termed constructivist or as belonging to the ‘alternative conceptions movement’. To achieve this an extensive bibliographical review has been carried out of the ambit of both theories with reference to two topics: the notion of force and the particulate nature of matter. After completing a comparison it was observed that the majority of conceptions currently recognized were previously detected by Piaget. It is concluded, therefore, that Piaget’s empirical data have been eclipsed for motives which are unjustified.

For twenty years, social constructivism has been a paradigm in science teaching and not an easy bedfellow for piagetian constructivism, even though both have had the same thing in mind… a study of the learner. For this reason we attempt to find connections and bridges between them so that both may be enriched, to the benefit of science teaching.

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.