1
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 28, NO. 7, P. 567 (1991) Editorial With the focus on “constructivism” in science and mathematics education, epis- temology has become a more common topic. Jean Piaget’s genetic epistemology, the focus of the article by Niaz in this issue, has played an important role in our current understanding of constructivism. Yet, as the Lawson critique shows, disagreement remains over issues such as the nature and viability of Piaget’s epistemic subject. A symposium at the 1990 NARST meeting in Atlanta involved Niaz and Lawson as well as Ernst von Glasersfeld, Richard Kitchener, and Joe Novak. Earlier papers and critiques, plus the lively debate during and following the symposium, resulted in the articles in this issue by Niaz and Lawson. I hope the readers of this issue enjoy the articles as much as I have enjoyed listening to, reading, and occasionally joining the debate. Nearly 25 years ago I read my first book by Jean Piaget when I was a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Child‘s Conception of Physical Causality led to my reading of most of Piaget’s other books (English translations) during the next 10 years or so. His ideas were thought-provoking and led to a tremendous amount of research and related activity in science education. As we continue to research and develop ideas on constructivism, Piaget’s work will likely continue to be seen as among the most important parts of the foundation. We should not ignore the considerable problems with some of Piaget’s ideas, however, as that can lead to an underemphasis on the importance of social context and prior knowledge in learning science. As Lawson points out, the centerpiece of Piaget’s theory of logical development (formal logic) has been soundly criticized by many researchers. Niaz’s article and Lawson’s critique help to clarify arguments that are important to consider as we continue to explore constructivism as a basis for research and practice in science education. Ron Good Editor 0 1991 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/91/070567-01$04.00

Editorial

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Editorial

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 28, NO. 7, P. 567 (1991)

Editorial

With the focus on “constructivism” in science and mathematics education, epis- temology has become a more common topic. Jean Piaget’s genetic epistemology, the focus of the article by Niaz in this issue, has played an important role in our current understanding of constructivism. Yet, as the Lawson critique shows, disagreement remains over issues such as the nature and viability of Piaget’s epistemic subject. A symposium at the 1990 NARST meeting in Atlanta involved Niaz and Lawson as well as Ernst von Glasersfeld, Richard Kitchener, and Joe Novak. Earlier papers and critiques, plus the lively debate during and following the symposium, resulted in the articles in this issue by Niaz and Lawson. I hope the readers of this issue enjoy the articles as much as I have enjoyed listening to, reading, and occasionally joining the debate.

Nearly 25 years ago I read my first book by Jean Piaget when I was a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Child‘s Conception of Physical Causality led to my reading of most of Piaget’s other books (English translations) during the next 10 years or so. His ideas were thought-provoking and led to a tremendous amount of research and related activity in science education. As we continue to research and develop ideas on constructivism, Piaget’s work will likely continue to be seen as among the most important parts of the foundation. We should not ignore the considerable problems with some of Piaget’s ideas, however, as that can lead to an underemphasis on the importance of social context and prior knowledge in learning science.

As Lawson points out, the centerpiece of Piaget’s theory of logical development (formal logic) has been soundly criticized by many researchers. Niaz’s article and Lawson’s critique help to clarify arguments that are important to consider as we continue to explore constructivism as a basis for research and practice in science education.

Ron Good Editor

0 1991 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/91/070567-01$04.00