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? ............................................... 3
Individual constructivists views on learning................................................................ 4
Social constructivists views on learning ..................................................................... 4
SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE CONSTRUCTIVIST PERSPECTIVE................................ 5
The constructivists View on the Nature of Science ................................................... 5
The Move from Individual Constructivists Views to Social Constructivists Views
on Science Learning ...................................................................................................... 6
THE FEATURES OF CONSTRUCTIVISM AND ITS SUGGESTION FOR SCIENCE
EDUCATION ......................................................................................................................... 7
Individual Constructivism Shows the Way Conceptual Changes Occur in Science
Education. ....................................................................................................................... 8
1. The Importance of Prior Knowledge .................................................................. 8
2. The Importance of Students Activities ............................................................. 9
Social constructivism informs how to make classroom environments effective. ..... 10
3. The Importance of Contextualization ............................................................... 10
4. The Importance of Collaboration within Learning Community ....................... 11
5. The Importance of Teachers Role in a Classroom ......................................... 12
TEACHING AND LEARNING USING COMPUTERS IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS ........... 14
SOME CRITIQUES ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVISTS PERSPECTIVES ................................ 16
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 17
REFERNCE .......................................................................................................................... 18

Miha Lees 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. Its 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 computers 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 cant imagine what it will be like. E-learning 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
constructivists 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.

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 3

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 Piagets 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 persons 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 constructivists view, meaning is made by individuals
and depends on the individuals 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 learners 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 Vygotskys 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

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 4

 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.

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 5

 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 persons 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)

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 6

 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

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 7

 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)

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 8

 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 constructivists 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 thought-demanding
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 teacher-centered 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

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 9

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 Deweys 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
doesnt 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,

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 10

1993) In a study for curriculum materials, Singer, Marx, and Krajcik (2000) promoted
the project-based 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 persons 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 Kearneys study, the rich
qualitative data collected from peer interactions showed that students experienced many
instances of conflicts and co-construction that were conductive to the development of
understanding.
Moreover, participation within a community requires the use of language to

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 11

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 Teachers 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

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 12

experts in their disciplines who introduce the scientific communitys 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 learners 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. Students
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

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 13

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 Id 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

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 14

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 student-learning
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.

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 15

 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)
Whats 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)

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 16

 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 dont 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

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 17

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 doesnt 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

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 18

 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. 265294). 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 299307.
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. 126142.
Nola, R. (1997). Constructivism in Science and Science Education: A Philosophical
Critique, Science and Education, 6, pp 5583.
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 rel chez lenfant, Neuchtel, Switzerland:
Delachaux et Niestl.
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

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 19

 science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63-82
Suchting, W. A. (1992). Constructivism Deconstructed, Science and Education, 1, pp
223254.
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

Miha Lees Issue Paper Page 20