Educational research constructivism

G. Bodner,M.Klobuchar, D. Geelan,The Many Forms of Constructivism, Jewrwa/ Chemical Education, >, 1107-1134,2001.For a critical appraisal,see E.R. Scerri, Philosophical Confusion in Chemical Education Research, Jewma/ of Chemical Education, 80, 468-474, 2003. 

It is also unfortunate that Herron s followers in chemical education research, some of whom have been cited in the present article, have not seen the need to specify the precise sense in which they are using such terms as constructivism and relativism. Bodner and colleagues in particular appear to support an unqualified form of relativism, as I argue below, and which I maintain is anti-scientific in spirit. 

Meanwhile, another chemical constructivist gives what can only be described as a simplistic comparison between what he terms objectivism and constructivism (Table 1 ). Unfortunately, this tendency to present constructivism as though it were a form of weight reduction treatment, complete with before and after snapshots, is only too common in chemical education research. 

Taber, K. S. (2006). Beyond constructivism The progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in Science Education, 42, 125-184. 

Journal of Applied Research in the Community College 4(2), 101-117. Bodner, G. M. (1986) Constructivism A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education 65(10), 873-878. 

Ferguson, R. L. (2007) Constructivism and social constructivism. In Theoretical Frameworks for Research in Chemistry/Science Education, eds. G. M. Bodner and M. Orgill, pp. 27-49. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall. 

Constructivism has its critics, even from within science education (Matthews, 1993,1994 Scerri, 2003), but such criticisms tend to be aimed at the philosophical underpinnings of some constructivist presentations, whereas the core of constructivism as applied in science classrooms is built upon findings from research into human learning. That is, at its heart, constmctivism in science education has drawn upon work in the psychology of learning, not on philosophical debates about epistemology. 

I believe that some influential researchers in the field of chemical education have taken a rather shallow approach to the study of philosophy of science. They enjoy quoting authors like Kuhn because they have been led to believe that the only sensible approach to science education lies in adopting constructivism . Rank and file educators are constantly berated for taking what these researchers call a positivist approach. Because they read in popular accounts that logical positivism is an outdated philosophical approach they embrace the opposite extreme philosophy. They do so, I claim, without taking the trouble to examine the evolution from logical positivism to Popper, through Kuhn and Lakatos to the frankly outlandish relativism of Feyerabend and some other contemporary relativists. 

In this article, my aim is to concentrate on another aspect of research in chemical education, one that I believe to be more harmful to the reputation of the field. I refer especially to some dubious and abstract theoretical issues revolving around the themes of constructivism, relativism, and other philosophical -isms. ... 

---