Excerpt: Rather than suggest that constructivist research is a spent force, this Lakatosian analysis suggests that this body of work can be understood as an important, if flawed and uneven, part of an ongoing progressive research programme into learning in science. Perhaps the ‘constructivist’ label is now passe or disreputable in some quarters, but the hard core of the constructivist programme identified here seems sound. Perhaps being ‘commonplace and unremarkable.… and.… too well known to be thought worthy of comment’ (Solomon, 1994: 6) is exactly how we should expect the hard core to appear to those working in a research programme.

Constructivism has been a key referent for research into the learning of science for several decades. There is little doubt that the research into learners’ ideas in science stimulated by the constructivist movement has been voluminous, and a great deal is now known about the way various science topics may commonly be understood by learners of various ages. Despite this significant research effort, there have been serious criticisms of this area of work: in terms of its philosophical underpinning, the validity of its most popular constructs, the limited scope of its focus, and its practical value to science teaching. This paper frames this area of work as a Lakatosian Research Programme (RP), and explores the major criticisms of constructivism from that perspective. It is argued that much of the criticism may be considered as part of the legitimate academic debate expected within any active RP, i.e. arguments about the auxiliary theory making up the ‘protective belt’ of the programme. It is suggested that a shifting focus from constructivism to ‘contingency in learning’ will allow the RP to draw upon a more diverse range of perspectives, each consistent with the existing hard core of the programme, which will provide potentially fruitful directions for future work and ensure the continuity of a progressive RP into learning science.

Key words: science education, conceptual change, hard core, alternative conception, alternative framework.

The notion of scientific research programmes is used to understand the development, limitations and potential of constructivism. It is shown that constructivist work in science education fits into a coherent programme exploring the contingencies of learning science. The author goes further to address criticisms of constructivism; evaluate progress in the field; and suggest directions for future research. It is concluded that constructivism has provided the foundations for a progressive research programme that continues to guide enquiry into learning and teaching science.

This chapter sets out the basis of one version of constructivism that is informed by findings from both cognitive science and from educational studies exploring learners’ thinking about curriculum topics and about classroom processes. A key concept here is the way in which new learning is contingent on features of the learner, the learning context and the teaching. It offers a theoretical basis for designing effective pedagogy that is accessible to classroom teachers. The chapter will explain that although constructivism understood this way certainly offers the basis for learner-centered teaching, it is far from “minimally-guided” instruction. Rather, a feature of this approach is that it does not adopt doctrinaire allegiance to particular levels of teacher input (as can be the case with teaching through discovery learning, or direct instruction) but rather the level of teacher guidance (a) is determined for particular learning activities by considering the learners and the material to be learnt, and (b) shifts across sequences of teaching and learning episodes, and includes potential for highly structured guidance, as well as more exploratory activities.

A great deal of research in science education reports on the contents of students’ minds: what they know, think, believe, and understand. This new book offers an analysis of the processes by which we can come to claims about the minds of others and highlights the logical impossibility of ever knowing for sure what someone else knows or thinks. I argue here that researchers in science education need to be much more explicit about the extent to which research into learners’ ideas in science is necessarily a process of developing models. Many research reports fail to acknowledge this, and make claims that are much less tentative than is justified, leading to misleading and sometimes contrary findings in the literature. In everyday life we commonly take it for granted that finding out what another knows or thinks is a relatively trivial or straightforward process. We come to take the “mental register” (the way we talk and think about the “contents” of minds) for granted and so teachers and researchers may readily underestimate the challenges involved in their work. The book sets out in stages the necessary processes and challenges involved in modelling student thinking, understanding and learning. Relevance: Concerns how researchers develop understandings of how learners construct knowledge in science classes

This presentation of key ideas about students’ thinking in science builds a bridge between theory and practice by offering clear accounts from research, and showing how they relate to actual examples of students talking about widely taught science topics. Focused on secondary students and drawing on perspectives found in the international research literature, the goal is not to offer a comprehensive account of the vast literature, but rather to provide an overview of the current state of the field suitable for those who need an understanding of core thinking about learners’ ideas in science, including science education students in teacher preparation and higher degree programs, and classroom teachers, especially those working with middle school, high school, or college level students. Such understanding can inform and enrich science teaching in ways which are more satisfying for teachers, less confusing and frustrating for learners, and so ultimately can lead to both greater scientific literacy and more positive attitudes to science. Relevance: This book introduces educational professionals to constructivist ideas about how learners develop their thinking about scientific topics.

Constructivism has been widely adopted as a referent for research, curriculum development and recommended pedagogy in education. This chapter considers key issues relating to the adoption of constructivist thinking in education which have arisen within the field of science education. Constructivism has been mooted as a dominant paradigm in science education, where it has informed a major research programme over some decades. However, the application of constructivist ideas in science education has also been subject to a range of critiques. This chapter gives an outline of the developing influence of constructivism in science education, and the common understandings of the term in relation to science teaching and learning; it reports on the main areas where the influence of constructivist thinking has been heavily criticised, and discusses how these criticisms are countered within the research programme; it considers some major directions for research within the research programme; and it evaluates the level of influence of constructivism in contemporary science education practice.

George Kelly’s professional focus was on supporting people who were struggling with the stresses of their lives. Finding that the Freudian ideas he had been offered as tools in his own professional training offered little in working towards change with many of his clients, Kelly developed his own approach based upon a constructivist perspective of learning (which he called constructive alternativism) centred on the core metaphor of person-as-scientist. People, like good scientists, should always be open to exploring new data and considering alternative explanations and conceptions, rather than becoming fixed in established ways of thinking. Kelly’s work developed into a recognised approach in psychology, and became very influential in at least one school of thought in science education. Kelly did not only offer a theory that could support clinical practice for therapists, but also offered a methodology for exploring a learner’s developing thinking. In his own educational work, he found that his approach offered insights into teachers’ classroom difficulties. This chapter considers the core ideas of Kelly’s theory in comparison with other constructivist perspectives employed in science education. The chapter also discusses how Kelly’s personal construct theory can inform classroom teaching and reflects on an approach that explicitly expects people to behave scientifically as a perspective on science teaching and learning.

Key words: the method of triads, repertory grid, personal constructs, constructivism, children’s science, alternative conceptions, person-as-scientist, falsificationism, accumulative fragmentalism, systems of constructs, building one’s own maze, construct repertory