Excerpt: Dennis Lomas in his essay on “Paul Ernest’s Application of Social Constructivism to Mathematics and Mathematics Education” correctly indentifies Ernest as a major proponent of social constructivism in mathematics education. Lomas’s essay is quite circumscribed in its goals: he leaves aside whether Ernest has adequately, or otherwise, interpreted the arguments of I. Lakatos, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and L. S. Vygotsky that he appeals to develop his philosophy of mathematics; and Lomas declines to reflect on the more general relevance of social constructivism to “mathematics, mathematics education, or education in general.” Lomas wishes to focus upon Ernest’s account of mathematical objects, and to begin a critique of the “social, political, and ethical consequences that [Ernest] draws from his position” for the “great issues of freedom, justice, trust and fellowship.” I propose in this commentary to first take a broader view of Ernest’s work, locating his social constructivism on the larger canvas of constructivism in science and mathematics education, and then follow Lomas’s more narrowed concerns.

This paper is critical of constructivism. It examines the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, it outlines the impact of the doctrine on contemporary science education, it details the relativist and subjectivist interpretation of Thomas Kuhn’s work found in constructivist writings, it indicates the problems that constructivist theory places in the way of teaching the content of science, and finally it suggests that a lot of old-fashioned, perfectly reasonable educational truisms and concepts are needlessly cloaked in constructivist jargon that inhibites communication with educationalists and policy makers.

Key words: constructivism, epistemology, thomas kuhn.

The paper will make two claims: first, that many constructivists embrace erroneous philosophical positions that are antithetical to the conduct of good science; and second, that Constructivism as a theory of learning promotes ineffective pedagogy and poor student learning. The philosophical errors identified are those associated with skepticism in epistemology and idealism in ontology. The pedagogical problem results from constructivism ignoring or minimising the basic point that learning is dependent upon guidance and instruction, the more so in a discipline such as physics. The paper will make some suggestions about why this unfortunate state of affairs has come to pass in science education research.

Key words: constructivism, idealism, ontology, realism

Ernst von Glasersfeld (1917–2010), a cyberneticist by training, was the creator and major exponent of the amalgam of psychological, philosophical, and educational positions known as radical constructivism (RC). Constructivism more generally has had enormous impact in science and mathematics research and pedagogy from the 1970s to the present time, with review after review saying it is the most influential theory in these fields. Within constructivism, von Glasersfeld’s RC has commanded a large following. Von Glasersfeld published well more than 100 papers, book chapters, and books in fields such as mathematics and science education, cybernetics, semantics, and epistemology. Two important books are Construction of Knowledge (1987) and Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning (1995); his major articles are gathered in Key Works in Radical Constructivism (2007). He was a philosophical autodidact who acknowledged Giambattista Vico (1668–1744) and Bishop George Berkeley (1685–1753) as the two major influences on the crafting of his own RC theory with Jean Piaget as the modern theorist from whom he took most inspiration.

Key words: radical constructivism, ernst von glasersfeld