Constructivism has been a leading approach in science education research since the 1980s, treating learning as a personal process of making sense of new material in light of what a learner already knows and understands. The approach draws heavily on psychology, especially the work of Jean Piaget, David Ausubel, Jerome Bruner and Lev Vygotsky, and it holds that students arrive at a science lesson already carrying ideas about the topic, sometimes called alternative conceptions or misconceptions, which shape how they take in anything new they are taught. Research groups at institutions including the University of Waikato and the University of Leeds studied how far students existing ideas shape what they go on to learn. Constructivism has faced philosophical criticism, but it remains highly influential and is now built into standard guidance for science teaching, which expects teachers to draw out and take account of what students already think before teaching new material. This description is adapted from Wikipedia contributors under CC BY-SA 4.0; changes were made. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Facts
Partially Attested
Origin YearWikipedia dates this paradigm only to since the 1980s, not a specific year; 1980 marks the start of that decade as the earliest defensible reading, not a precise founding date. Core ClaimConstructivism in science education treats learning as an active process of personal sense-making in which new understanding is shaped by what a learner already knows, so teaching must draw out and build on students' existing ideas. 1 Sources
1. Constructivism in science education (Wikipedia)
Description section
These papers presented learning as process of personal sense making, and an iterative matter such that what is learnt was channelled by existing knowledge and understanding.
Lead section
Constructivism has been considered as a dominant paradigm, or research programme, in the field of science education since the 1980s.
View the SourceReader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.