abstract

From the introduction:

In 1994, Studies in Science Education published a review discussing ‘the rise and fall of constructivism’. This paper suggested that ‘constructivism’, which had become seen as the most significant perspective and indeed the dominant paradigm, in science education for several decades, had outlived its usefulness, and that perhaps it was time for the science education community to ‘move on’…that constructivism was ceasing to act as a fertile stimulus to research…A decade further on, there is no clear evidence of a new ‘paradigm’ overthrowing the constructivist orthodoxy, despite problems with the notion of constructivism in science education that have been identified by many commentators. Rather, studies into the learning of science continue to be informed by a range of perspectives some of which may be seen to develop from, or be consistent with, earlier ‘constructivist’ research to differing degrees.

The argument in this paper is that research into learning and teaching in science may be considered as an academic ‘field’, but one which is still pre-paradigmatic in the Kuhnian sense … It is argued in this review that Lakatos’ approach is a useful way for identifying continuity in research traditions within a field such as science education. This review takes up a long-standing proposal that research into learning in science that has been labelled as ‘constructivism in science education’ or the ‘alternative conceptions movement’, could be understood as a Lakatosian RP. It is argued here that key papers published around 1980 outlined a RP concerned with learning in science, based around ‘constructivist’ principles; the research agenda established then is still being addressed through much current research; considerable progress has been made in addressing some parts of the original research agenda, and shifts in the focus of studies may reflect the expected development in a progressive RP. The Lakatosian model provides a means for demarcating a RP within the field, and for characterising it. Such characterisation is important because it provides a basis for considering and responding to key criticisms of constructivist work in science education and for ‘taking stock’ of the current state of the field. The key purpose of the present review is to evaluate what has been achieved within the RP, and to highlight fruitful avenues for further research.