What does constructivism suggest for science education

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

What does constructivism suggest for science education

Issue Paper

Miha Lee

2006 Fall

This paper was my issue paper for SED 625S that was about constructivism for science education.

Contents

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3

WHAT IS THE CONSTRUCTIVIST ’ VIEW ON LEARNING? ....................................................... 4

Individual constructivists ’ views on learning .......................................................................... 5

Social constructivists ’ views on learning ................................................................................ 6

SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE CONSTRUCTIVIST ’ PERSPECTIVE ....................................... 8

The constructivists ’ View on the Nature of Science .............................................................. 8

The Move from Individual Constructivists ’ Views to Social Constructivists ’ Views on

Science Learning ................................................................................................................. 10

THE FEATURES OF CONSTRUCTIVISM AND ITS SUGGESTION FOR SCIENCE

EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................... 13

Individual Constructivism Shows the Way Conceptual Changes Occur in Science Education.

............................................................................................................................................. 14

1. The Importance of Prior Knowledge ......................................................................... 14

2. The Importance of Students ’ Activities ..................................................................... 16

Social constructivism informs how to make classroom environments effective. ................. 18

3. The Importance of Contextualization ........................................................................ 18

4. The Importance of Collaboration within Learning Community .................................. 20

5. The Importance of Teacher ’ s Role in a Classroom .................................................. 23

TEACHING AND LEARNING USING COMPUTERS IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS ................. 27

SOME CRITIQUES ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVISTS ’ PERSPECTIVES ....................................... 30

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 33

REFERNCE ................................................................................................................................. 35

Miha Lee ’ s Issue Paper Page 2

INTRODUCTION

What I want to study throughout this grad school program is that "How can I improve my students' achievements in understanding of chemistry concepts and principles?" To find out the answers for this question I have read a lot of research papers and articles and encountered the new term, the constructivism.

It’s been 16 years since I graduated from the college of education, Seoul

National University in 1990. When I went to the university I learned about Piaget and his cognitive genetics, but I never heard of the constructivism. The constructivism seemed to be related with the conceptual formation of students and motivation. So I thought that the constructivism was valuable to me and wanted to know more about it. My issue paper will focus on the question: what does the constructivism suggest for secondary science education?

In addition, we live in an information age when the Internet access is available any place and any time. I think this Internet has brought a lot of change in our educational system and environments. Textbooks and teachers are not the only and main sources of knowledge any more. And many researchers have been trying to use the computer, the most versatile


multimedia tool, in science education. Surprisingly, I hardly find the article dealing with the potential of Internet in science education. Many researches just treat of the computer’s multimedia function as a teaching aid tool. However, I am sure that we are going to need to use the Internet to teach and learn science in the future classroom although I can’t imagine what it will be like. Elearning may show a part of the answer. I think constructivists will find the way to use this Internet as an important educational media. So later in this paper I will suggest the use of computer in a constructivist’s view.

WHAT IS THE CONSTRUCTIVIST’ VIEW ON LEARNING?

It is important to review theories of learning because they provide conceptual tools to be used by teachers when thinking about teaching. Before exploring the constructivists’ perspectives on science education, I start with constructivists’ general views on learning.


Individual constructivists’ views on learning

One strand of constructivism has its origins in Piaget's genetic epistemology and related cognitive science views. The notion that intelligence organizes the world by organizing itself (Piaget 1937, p.311) reflects that

Piaget’s central concern was with the process by which humans construct their knowledge of the world. Piaget postulated the existence of cognitive schemes that are formed and developed through the coordination and internalization of a person’s actions on realities in the world. These schemes evolve as a result of equilibration, a process of adaptation to more complex experiences. New schemes thus come into being and modifying old ones. (Driver et al 1994)

According to this individual constructivist’s view, meaning is made by individuals and depends on the individual’s current knowledge schemes.

Therefore, learning occurs when those schemes are changed by the resolution of disequilibration. Such resolution requires internal mental activity and results in development of new knowledge scheme.

If learning is a mental activity that constructs knowledge in learner’s mind, learning is equal to what Perkins (1993) called ‘understanding’. He insists that teaching for understanding is very important because the most basic goal of


education is preparing students for further learning and more effective functioning in their lives. However, knowledge and skills in themselves, he argues, do not guarantee understanding, and people can acquire knowledge and routine skills without understanding their basis and when to use them. So building understanding is to become a central element of educational program.

(Perkins, 1993)

In sum, understanding means constructing and modifying knowledge schemes in students’ minds. Understanding goes beyond knowing. It requires learners’ dynamic mental activities.

Social constructivists’ views on learning

The other strand of learning theory has its origins in Vygotskian and neo-

Vygotskian psychology. While the individual constructivism places primary on seeing meaning-making as a cognitive process in the individual, the social constructivism focuses on an account of individuals as they function in social contexts. A social constructivist perspective recognizes that learning involves being introduced to a specific cultural community. Bruner (1985) introduced

Vygotsky’s work to express this perspective.


The Vygotskian project is to find the manner in which aspirant members of a culture learn from their tutors, the vicars of their culture, how to understand the world. That world is a symbolic world in the sense that it consists of conceptually organized, rule bound belief systems about what exists, about how to get to goals, about what is to be valued.

There is no way, none, in which a human being could possibly master that world without the aid and assistance of others for, in fact, that world is others. (Bruner, 1985, p.32)

In this perspective knowledge and its understanding are constructed when individuals engage socially in talk and activity about shared problems and tasks.

Making meaning is thus a dialogic process involving persons in conversations, and learning is seen as the process by which individuals are introduced to a culture by more skilled members. So learning makes learners appropriate the cultural tools through their involvement in the activities of this culture.

Throughout the learning process, a more experienced member of a culture supports a less experienced member by structuring tasks, making it possible for the less experienced person to perform them and to internalize the process.

(Driver et al 1994)


In sum, in social constructivists’ view meaning-making is portrayed as originating in social interactions between individuals, or as individuals’ interactions with cultural products that are made available to them in books or other sources. (Leach & Scott, 2003)

SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE CONSTRUCTIVIST’ PERSPECTIVE

The constructivists’ View on the Nature of Science

Before talking about the constructivists’ view on learning in science education, I have to begin with the nature of science because the base of the constructivism lies in its view on the nature of science. And as science teachers we have to take into account the nature of science to teach when we decide what and how to teach science.

McComas(1998, p55) insists that scientific laws and other such ideas are not absolute and all knowledge is tentative. He also says that the issue of tentativeness is part of the self-correcting aspect of science. In addition, scientific knowledge is both symbolic in nature and also socially negotiated. The objects of science are not the phenomena of nature but constructs that are advanced by the scientific community to interpret nature. (Driver et al 1994)


Actually, if we examine the science history we can find this assertion true in many cases, which Kuhn describes as the shifts of paradigm. In chemistry the model of atom has been changed as new theories came out with more plausible explanations.

Driver et al (1994) argues that the concepts used to describe and model the domains of science are constructs that have been invented and imposed on phenomena in attempts to interpret and explain them, often as results of considerable intellectual struggles. As a result, the symbolic world of science is now populated with ontological entities; it is organized by ideas and encompasses procedures of measurement and experiment. These ontological entities, organizing concepts, and associated epistemology and practices of science are unlikely to be discovered by individuals through their own observations of the natural world. Scientific knowledge as public knowledge is constructed and communicated through the culture and social institutions of science. (Driver et al 1994)

The view of scientific knowledge as socially constructed and changeable has important implications for science education. It means that when we teach science, we should foster a critical perspective on scientific culture among


students. We should teach the limitation of scientific knowledge and its application as social products.

The Move from Individual Constructivists’ Views to Social Constructivists’ Views on Science Learning

According to Piagetian perspective, learning science is seen as involving a process of conceptual change . And Individual view on learners’ knowledge seems to be entities on person’s head with such terms as cognitive scheme or conceptual structure (von Glasersfeld 1999 p. 12).

At the beginning of a paper entitled 'What changes in conceptual change?' diSessa & Sherin (1998) introduce their mental structure model in terms of an

'. . . image of a network of nodes, each of which corresponds to a concept, with the nodes connected by links of multiple types' (p. 1155). Some possibilities for conceptual change are then presented, such as the addition or deletion of nodes, and changing links between nodes in learners’ mental structures. diSessa and Sherin's approach represents the view of individual constructivism on conceptual change which emphasize on individual mental activity, making


little or no reference to external factors such as cultures that might influence or drive conceptual change to the individual.

However, Leach & Scott pointed that it is not possible to explain how teaching enables students to reach new understandings by focusing upon their

'mental structures' in isolation from the situations in which that 'mental structure' is used. A considerable attention should be given to how features of the social environment might influence the mental functioning of individuals in that environment. (Leach & Scott, 2003)

Moreover, Driver et al (1994) argues that there is a significant omission from individual constructivists’ perspective on knowledge construction.

Developments in learners’ cognitive structures are seen as coming about through the interaction of these structures with features of an external physical reality , with meaning-making stimulated by peer interaction. What is not considered in a substantial way is the learners’ interactions with symbolic realities, the cultural tools of science .

Consequently, social constructivists assert that to construct knowledge beyond personal empirical enquiry, learners should be given access to the knowledge system of science, that is, the concepts and models of conventional


science. Social constructivists agree that insights about students' 'mental structures' are useful in explaining why science is difficult to learn for many students. However, in their view such insights are not enough to explain how students learn science in classrooms . Consideration of the social environment through which students learn scientific ideas is necessary. In fact, many individual views on science learning refer to how the social environment might influence learning (Driver et al, 1994; Leach & Scott, 2003).

In addition, in a social constructivists' perspective the intended products of science learning (i.e., science concepts) are cultural. They cannot generally be perceived by individuals, they are validated through complex empirical and social processes, and they are used within scientific communities for particular purposes. Therefore, scientific knowledge can only be learned through some process of social transmission. (Leach & Scott, 2003)

In social constructivists' view, moreover, given the situation with so many students in a classroom, teachers can hardly plan instructions to address each student's momentary and individual development. In order for research to inform science teaching it is necessary to theorize the relationship between teaching and learning , rather than focusing upon individuals with no reference to the


learning environment. Therefore, much consideration should be given to how the knowledge to be taught is introduced in the social environment of the classroom , and how individual students become able to use that knowledge for themselves. (Driver et al, 1994; Leach & Scott, 2003)

THE FEATURES OF CONSTRUCTIVISM AND ITS SUGGESTION FOR SCIENCE

EDUCATION

The constructivism provides a perspective on teaching and learning science in classrooms, with a view to improving the effectiveness of science teaching in enhancing students' learning. The core view of constructivists on learning science suggests that students construct their knowledge strongly influenced by social environments. They learn science through a process of constructing, interpreting and modifying their own representations of reality based on their experiences. Therefore, constructivists acknowledge social dimension of learning such as the classroom and learning community whereby students make meaning of the world through both personal and social processes. (Driver et al, 1994; Kearney, 2004)


In short, according to constructivism the most important thing in science teaching and learning is providing students with learning environment that promotes their understanding of science by co-constructing and negotiating ideas through meaningful peer and teacher interactions. (Solomon, 1987)

Individual Constructivism Shows the Way Conceptual Changes Occur in Science

Education.

1. The Importance of Prior Knowledge

In terms of individual constructivism, students are supposed to build their new knowledge based on their prior knowledge. In this perspective on learning, in order to predict how learners will respond to attempts to teach science it is necessary to understand their preinstructional knowledge, the knowledge that students bring to a given teaching situation. (Leach & Scott, 2003)

Students come to science classrooms with a range of strongly held personal science views. So teachers should have insights about students' preinstructional knowledge to use in their instructional designs. Information about students' characteristic ways of thinking and talking about the world is potentially useful in preparing teaching. For example, student performance can


improve when instruction is designed to deal with specific difficulties revealed in studies of students' preinstructional knowledge. (Savinainen & Scott 2002)

Therefore, the elicitation of students’ preinstructional knowledge helps teachers to identify common alternative conceptions and to design subsequent episodes in order to cause cognitive conflicts of students.

In brief, the teaching sequence should be designed on the basis of a detailed conceptual analysis of the science to be taught and students' typical preinstructional knowledge. Through this analysis, curricular goals can be identified and teaching activities designed and evaluated. (Leach & Scott, 2003)

Besides, once students are asked to elicit their ideas about science phenomena, they have an opportunity to articulate and clarify their ideas and to be motivated to find the correct science views. To probe students’ prior knowledge, inquiry-based learning and POE strategy can be used. In the inquiry-based learning students are supposed to make a hypothesis before exploring the world. To create a hypothesis, students need to clarify their prior knowledge putting their ideas in words. Likewise, in a POE task students should make predictions about the result of a demonstration. To make a prediction, students need to articulate their previous ideas expressing their ideas.


2. The Importance of Students’ Activities

From the individual constructivist’s view point teaching approach in science education should focus on providing learners with physical experiences that induce cognitive conflicts and hence encourage them to develop new knowledge schemes that are better adapted to experience.

When students are given opportunities to actively construct their knowledge of a discipline, deep understanding is more likely to develop (Krajcik et al.,

1998; Roth, 1994) Perkins (1993) argued that engaging students in thoughtdemanding performances provides opportunities that promote deep understanding. This performance perspective suggests that students construct knowledge by engaging in learning activities that require them “to explain, muster evidence, find examples, generalize, apply concepts, analogize, and represent in a new way” as they create new understanding that builds on their prior knowledge. (Perkins, 1993, p.29)

The emphasis of activities means to me two things: student-centered teaching and laboratory –centered teaching. At the center of instructional activities are students. Teacher can introduce new knowledge and skills to


students, but it is the students that construct them in their minds. So teachercentered teaching does little good in students’ learning processes. Activities such as performance of experiments and discussion about the results with peers can help students to build understandings.

Activity does not need to be only experiments in a laboratory. However, in secondary science education the knowledge and concepts are so complicated that many controlled activities are required to perform to explain their meanings.

And during laboratory work students have opportunities to learn the procedure and skills that are facilitating conceptual changes.

Needless to say, other activities also play important roles in teaching and learning science. Any activities in which students cognitively and actively engaged can help conceptual changes take place. In a study only a science textbook was used as teaching material, but students’ active reading resulted in not only acquiring new knowledge but also changing concepts. So students are to be prepared to reflect on and reconstruct their conceptions in order for conceptual change to occur.


Social constructivism informs how to make classroom environments effective.

3. The Importance of Contextualization

Actively constructing knowledge or engaging in a performance of understanding requires that learners become immersed within the context of the discipline (Roth, 1994). Perkins (1993) argues that grasping what a concept or principle means depends in considerable part on recognizing how it functions within the discipline. Such disciplinary contexts provide situations within which novices can learn through increasingly autonomous activity in the presence of social and intellectual support. (Singer, Marx, and Krajcik, 2000)

Social interaction is a critical component of situated learning -- learners become involved in a "community of practice" which embodies certain beliefs and behaviors to be acquired. As the beginner or newcomer moves from the periphery of this community to its center, they become more active and engaged within the culture and hence assume the role of expert or old-timer.

Furthermore, situated learning is usually unintentional rather than deliberate.

These ideas are called the process of "legitimate peripheral participation." (Lave

& Wenger, 1991)


On the other hand, real-life scenarios make science connected with students’ lives. Perkins(1993) emphasizes “connected curriculum”, a curriculum full of knowledge of the right kind to connect richly to future insights and applications. He used the term John Dewey’s generative knowledge to identify the knowledge that consists of a connected curriculum. Generative knowledge is the knowledge with rich ramifications in the lives of students. He also put an emphasis on the fact that generative knowledge doesn’t need to be simply fun and doggedly practical. The most generative knowledge, he thought, is powerful conceptual systems, systems of concepts and examples that yield insight and implications in many circumstances.

This contextualization suggests two things to me. One is the need to introduce life related topics into the classroom. Learning contents that incorporate real-life situation have two strengths: motivation and transfer. When students learn things that are close to their lives, their interests are attracted and maintained. Besides, these contextualized learning promotes the transfer of knowledge to apply it in specific situations. (Perkins, 1993) In a study for curriculum materials, Singer, Marx, and Krajcik (2000) promoted the projectbased teaching and learning. They employed the driving questions to situate the


projects in the lives of learners. In their driving questions, students’ real-world experiences were used to contextualize scientific ideas and subquestions and anchoring events to help students apply their emerging scientific understanding to the real world, thus helping them see value in their academic work. (Singer,

Marx, and Krajcik, 2000)

The other is the effectiveness of learning by enculturation into experts’ world of science. To deeply understand the principles of science, students must actively see how knowledge or skills function within the context of science.

Once students are accustomed to the terms and procedures of science, they can learn science with less difficulty. By immersing students in a scientific culture through extended inquiry, students learn such practices as debating ideas, designing and conducting investigations, reasoning logically, using evidence to support claims, and proposing interpretations of findings. (Singer,

Marx, and Krajcik, 2000)

4. The Importance of Collaboration within Learning Community

Learning in the classroom is to be a social and dialogic activity. Social constructivists describe learning in classrooms as co-construction of knowledge.


Conversation with their classmates in a classroom forms a learning community.

An essential part of a learning community is interaction among its members to share information and reach consensus decisions. Practical activities supported by group discussions form the core of constructivists’ pedagogical practices.

Through the interaction with peers students can develop their ideas about science phenomena, reflect on the viability of their conceptions, and finally negotiate shared meanings to reformulate their ideas. During conversations students learn another person’s insights, which is a benefit.

In a POE strategy, for example, small group learning conversations play a critical role not only in eliciting students’ preinstructional science conception but also in providing a peer learning opportunity for students. This conversation offers social interactions that promote students’ articulation and justification of their own science conceptions, clarification of and critical reflection on their partners’ views, and negotiation of new, shared meanings. (Kearney, 2004) In

Kearney’s study, the rich qualitative data collected from peer interactions showed that students experienced many instances of conflicts and coconstruction that were conductive to the development of understanding.

Moreover, participation within a community requires the use of language to


exchange and negotiate meaning of ideas among its members. In social constructivists’ view language has special meaning like tools of specific culture.

So acquiring the scientific language means in a part learning science. Students are introduced into the language community by more competent others and appropriate the symbolic forms of others and the functionality of those forms through language. Although the intrapsychic functions of language enable each student to construct understanding, the interpersonal functions allow them to engage in discourse. Hence, student becomes a member of a classroom scientific community. The movement between the interpersonal and intrapsychic uses of language constitutes one of the essential sites of learning.

(Singer, Marx, and Krajcik, 2000)

In a constructivists’ perspective, classrooms are places where individuals are actively engaged with others in attempting to understand and interpret phenomena for themselves, and where social interaction in groups is seen to provide the stimulus of differing perspectives on which individuals can reflect.

The social nature of formal learning situations regards the classroom as the place that provides the mechanism to drive changes in students’ mental structures. Thus, collaboration in classroom suggests that small and large group


activities should be fostered in science classroom. And during these activities discussion using scientific language should be encouraged to promote scientific literacy.

5. The Importance of Teacher’s Role in a Classroom

In many teaching studies teachers were centrally involved in developing and implementing the teaching approach. It is therefore possible that improvements in student learning arise as much from changes in the way teachers conceptualize teaching and learning and deal with classroom interactions, as the sequence of activities in the teaching.

In constructivists’ view teachers in science classrooms as authority figures play two essential roles. One is to introduce new ideas or cultural tools where necessary and to provide the support and guidance for students to make sense of these for themselves. The other is to listen and diagnose the ways in which the instructional activities are being interpreted to inform further action. (Driver et al, 1994)

One hand, in the paper 'Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the

Classroom', Driver et al (1994) emphasized that the role of the science teacher


is to mediate scientific knowledge for students, to help them to make personal sense of the ways in which knowledge claims are generated and validated rather than to organize individual sense-making about the natural world. (Driver et al, 1994) Teachers are knowledgeable experts in their disciplines who introduce the scientific community’s culture to students . Teachers provide appropriate experimental evidence and make the cultural tools and conventions of the science community available to students. Teachers use specialized terms and concepts; they show specialized procedure and skills. Teachers are making and providing students with learning environments in which students construct their knowledge by using formal scientific discourses.

On the other hand, there is a hypothetical space between assisted and unassisted performance that Vygotsky(1978) identified as the zone of proximal development(ZPD). By identifying a learner’s ZPD, a teacher can locate the psychological space in which assistance can help to propel the learner to higher levels of understanding. Due to the fact that learners construct their understanding, the assistance provided in the ZPD has become known as scaffolding. (Singer, Marx, and Krajcik, 2000, p170) According to Perkins(1993), teacher is like a coach in a sense that teacher helps learners to figure out their


weaknesses, and work on them, and gives appropriate feedback to help them perform better. To help students adopt scientific ways of thinking and knowing, science teachers should provide various experiences and encourage deep reflection. Student’s meanings are listened to and respectfully questioned.

Furthermore, teachers should offer helpful interventions to promote thought and reflection on the part of the learner with requests for argument and evidence in support of assertions. (Duckworth, 1987, pp.96-97)

Furthermore, teacher can provoke and initiate quality comments in the difficult discussion. The essential role of the teacher is controlling the 'flow of discourse' (Mortimer & Scott, 2000) in the classroom. The ability to guide the classroom discourse as ideas are explored and explanations are introduced, is central to the science teacher's skill and is critical in influencing students' learning. Teachers guide classroom discourses with different kinds of pedagogical intervention. At different times the teacher might play diverse roles to:

 develop key ideas relating to the new concepts being introduced;

 introduce points relating to epistemological features of the new way of


knowing;

 promote shared meaning amongst all of the students in the class, making key ideas available to all;

 check student understanding of newly introduced concepts.

Taken together these different kinds of teacher intervention and the ongoing interactions between teacher and students constitute a teaching and learning 'performance' on the social plane of the classroom (Leach & Scott,

2003).

The challenge for teachers is one of how to achieve such a process of enculturation successfully in the round of normal classroom life. What's more, there are special challenges when the science view that the teacher is presenting is in conflict with learners’ prior knowledge schemes (Driver et al,

1994).


TEACHING AND LEARNING USING COMPUTERS IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS

Technologies are developed and utilized to engage learners in intellectually challenging tasks and scaffold their needs. Among those technologies, computer and its Internet access are outstanding. They play many roles in science education, but I’d like to talk about their roles in a constructivists’ view.

1.

Computer as a source of information

Before the Internet got ubiquitous, the only learning materials were textbooks, and the only authority figures were teachers. However, there are so many learning materials such as html documents, ebooks and electronic encyclopedias in the Internet; there are so many ways to get in touch with authority figures such as scientists and other schoolteachers. Whatever students want to know, they can get information through searching the Internet.

Even in Korea, we have many charged teaching sites about high school curriculums because they help students prepare for the Korean SAT. These sites not only offer the video clips showing the lecture and experiments but also many referential learning materials.


2.

Computer as a communication tool

Computers can foster communication among local and extended community members. And teachers can give feedback to their students through computer communication tools such as electronic bulletin boards and instant messages. Teacher can also add information on the electronic bulletin boards to guide students through the lessons.

In a study by Blumenfeld et al (1996), they used web-based facilities to support and keep track of synchronous dialogue among students that then serve as a public archive of conversations: “…conversations can be stored, reflected on and reacted to, creating a common knowledge base that is open to review and comment and manipulation” (Blumenfeld, Marx, Soloway, & Krajcik,

1996, p.39)

In a social constructivists’ perspective, the success of these web-based communications depends on the opportunities afforded to students for critiquing the ideas of others as well as soliciting alternative ideas, sorting out conflicting information and responding to other learners. (Linn, 1998) If all students post their ideas on a central database accessible through a network, they can


establish a discourse community comparing and reflecting on the multiple perspectives of others. (Kearney, 2004)

3.

Computer as a scaffold

Internet websites provide student centered learning environments. The control over pacing of computer-based learning gives students the flexibility and time to thoroughly build their understandings.

Besides, computers help and guide learning by reducing complexity, highlighting concepts and fostering metacognition. For example, the use of computer program such as e-chem helps students create more scientifically acceptable representations of molecules. Software support complex processes that students are not capable of completing without assistance. (Singer, Marx, and Krajcik, 2000, p173) Therefore, extensive use of learning technologies helps students develop deep understanding of scientific concepts and processes by themselves.

4.

Computer as a backdrop of real world

Learning technologies expand the range of topics that can be taught in the


classroom. Especially, computers and its Internet access extend studentlearning experiences beyond the classroom by introducing real-world issues with movies, simulations and animations. They promote contextualized understanding of scientific phenomena in real world. In his research, Kearney

(2004) used computer-mediated video clips to show difficult, expensive, time consuming or dangerous demonstrations of real projectile motions. The real-life physical settings depicted in the video clips provided interesting and relevant contexts for the students. Salomon, Perkins, and Globerson (1991) argue that the effect of the technology is more lasting effects as a consequence of students’ mindful engagement with the tool.

SOME CRITIQUES ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVISTS’ PERSPECTIVES

Several writers have presented a dichotomy between constructivism and realism (e.g., Suchting 1992; Nola 1997) with the assumption that constructivism necessarily involves a relativist position on the status of scientific knowledge, or that '. . . constructivism is basically, and at best, a warmed up version of old-style empiricism' (Matthews 1992, p. 5). However,


constructivists such as Leach & Scott (2003) admitted that natural phenomena exist independently from human theorizing about them. And they also admitted that the behavior of the natural world constrains human theorizing about it. The point is that in order to understand and use scientific ideas, students need to recognize how the purposes and warranting of those ideas differ from everyday ways of talking about the natural world.

In addition, Jenkins (2000) argues that progressivist claims such as

‘students are natural scientists’ and ‘everyone engages in scientific activity during the course of their everyday activities’ are, from the point of view of science education, beguiling and misleading because classroom environments are different from the research centers. The goal of teaching science in classroom is not finding new knowledge by students, but introducing established knowledge into their minds.

Jenkins also pointed some problems in constructivists’ view. For example, if students’ understandings of natural phenomena were wrong, science teachers would argue that they are to be corrected, but constructivism offer little in the way of guidance about how this may best be done. One suggestion is cognitive conflict theory form the individual constructivism. However, it is too vague to


guide science teachers in their teaching science. What kind of activities can we use to revise students misconceptions? (Jenkins, 2000)

What’s more, to guide students into scientific culture, including symbolic realities and cultural tools, teachers should have expert scientific knowledge.

However, Solomon (1994) and Perkins (1993) questioned this quality of teacher.

Also, the way in which scientific expert knowledge of the teacher can be most effectively deployed to help students learn something of the ways in which the world is understood by the scientific community remains to be debated.

Finally, the activities that student are engaged in does not need to be practical and physical. Especially, in high school science education, the contents are too complex and theoretical to be explored physically. That is why constructivism is more popular with primary school teachers than secondary teachers. (Jenkins, 2000)

In most cases practical work should be conducted in such a way that the main purpose is for students to interact with ideas , as much as the phenomena themselves. It is necessary for teaching to focus upon scientific ways of talking and thinking about phenomena , rather than the phenomena themselves. (Leach


& Scott, 2003) We teachers can employ a wide variety of teaching strategy to engage students’ minds in learning.

CONCLUSION

The American Association for the Advancement of Science has described the widespread acceptance of constructivism as a ‘paradigm change’ in science education (Tobin, 1993). Constructivism really has changed science education to a great extent. It shows science educators how people learn science.

The constructivist perspective on learning science is not simply extending students knowledge about nature or promoting conceptual change from students’ informal ideas to scientifically acceptable ideas. And learning science requires more than challenging learners’ prior ideas through discrepant events.

Learning science involves the process in which novice students are introduced to a scientific community through discourse with their peers and expert teachers in the context of relevant tasks. Science classroom is a forming community in which students carry out discursive practices to coconstruct ‘common


knowledge’. (Edward & Mercer, 1987) Students develop shared meanings with their teacher and other students in the social context of the classroom.

Science teachers play crucial roles in science learning of students not only by making scientific culture tools available to students, but also by guiding and coconstructing the knowledge with their students through discourse about shared practices. Through dialogical interaction expert teachers can provide support or scaffolding for students’ learning as they construct new meanings for themselves.

Computer and its Internet access have a lot of potential to improve science education. However, they don’t seem to have explicit relation with constructivism, particularly in the classroom situation. Maybe, we need to do more research to find the ways in which science education use the computer in the classroom to build students’ understandings along with constructivist approaches.

Constructivist science teachers strive to make students socialized into the ways of knowing and practices of school science through the discursive activities of science lessons. However, science teachers should keep one thing in mind in addition to those efforts. We should foster a critical perspective on


scientific culture among students. To develop such a perspective, we should inform them the varied purpose of scientific knowledge, its limitations, and the bases on which its claims are made. (Driver et al, 1994) So in classroom activities, we should try to involve these epistemological features in our discourses.

Finally, the problem that these days science teachers face is not a matter of how students learn science, but a matter of what makes students want to learn. (Woolnough, 1998) Constructivism doesn’t seem to give the answer about the question of motivation. So just one perspective is not enough to guide science teachers to achieve their teaching goals.

REFERNCE

(The colored ones are my original references.)

Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers.

From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational

Researcher, 25(8), 37-40.


Bruner, J. (1985). 'Vygotsky: A Historical and Conceptual Perspective', in J.

Wertsch (ed.), Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian

Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, England, pp. 21-34. diSessa, A. & Sherin (1998). 'What Changes in Conceptual Change?',

International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155-1191.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994). 'Constructing

Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom', Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-

12.

Duckworth, E. (1987). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching and learning. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. M. (1987). Common Knowledge: The Development of

Understanding in the Classroom, Methuen, London.

Jenkins, E. W., (2000). Constructivism in School Science Education: Powerful

Model or the Most Dangerous Intellectual Tendency? Science & Education,

9, pp 599-610.

Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom Use of Multimedia-Supported Predict-Observe-

Explain Tasks in a Social Constructivist Learning Environment, Research in Science Education, 34, pp 427-453


Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredericks, J., &

Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, pp 313-350

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral

Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and Sociocultural Views of Learning in

Science Education, Science & Education, 12, 91-113.

Linn, M. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.),

International handbook of science education (pp. 265–294). Dordrecht,

The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Linn, M., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers. Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

MaComas, W, F. (1998). The Nature of Science in Science Education, Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands. 53-70

Matthews, M. (1992). ‘Constructivism and Empiricism: An Incomplete Divorce’,

Research in Science Education, 22, pp 299–307.


Mortimer, E.F. & Scott, P.H. (2000). 'Analysing Discourse in the Science

Classroom', in R. Millar, J. Osborne (eds.), Improving Science Education:

The Contribution of Research, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp.

126–142.

Nola, R. (1997). ‘Constructivism in Science and Science Education: A

Philosophical Critique’, Science and Education, 6, pp 55–83.

Perkins, D. (1993). Teaching for Understanding, American Educator: The professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers; 17(3) 28-35.

Piaget, J. (1937) La construction du réel chez l’enfant, Neuchâtel, Switzerland:

Delachaux et Niestlé.

Roth, W. M. (1994), Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, pp 197-223.

Salomon, G., Perkins, D., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational

Researcher, 20(3), pp 2-9.

Savinainen, A. & Scott, P. (2002). 'The Force Concept Inventory: A Tool for

Monitoring Student Learning', Physics Education 37(1), 45-52.

Singer, J., Marx, R, W., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Constructing Extended Inquiry


Projects: Curriculum Materials for Science Education Reform, Educational

Psychologist, 35(3), pp 165-178

Solomon, J. (1994). 'The Rise and Fall of Constructivism', Studies in Science

Education 23, 1-19.

Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils’ understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63-82

Suchting, W. A. (1992). ‘Constructivism Deconstructed’, Science and Education,

1, pp 223–254.

Tobin, K. G. (ed.), (1993). The practice of constructivism in Science and

Mathmatics Education, AAAS press, Washington DC. von Glasersfeld, E. (1999). 'How Do We Mean? A Constructivist Sketch of

Semantics', Cybernetics & Human Learning 6(1), 9-16.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher

Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Woolnough, B. E, (1998). Learning Science is a Messy Process, Science

Teacher Education, 23, 17


What does constructivism suggest for science education

What does constructivism suggest for science education

Issue Paper

Contents

Related documents

Products

Support

What does constructivism suggest for science education

What does constructivism suggest for science education

Issue Paper

Contents

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib