Volume/Issue :

Article type :

Editorial

Page No :

4-7

Abstract :

It is obvious that the constructivist perspective is becoming a dominant paradigm in the field of the natural science education. “Constructivism” is not a specific pedagogy but a psychological theory of knowledge. The main idea of this theory is that humans construct knowledge and meaning from their experiences. Central to constructivism is the notion that learners play an active role in ‘constructing’ their own meaning. In general it is true. However, this theory can not be against the traditional way of teaching and learning. Constructivist approaches require learners to be active and confident in themselves and their abilities. However, learners may not always be active in the teaching and learning process. Quite often, learners` abilities are quite limited. In this situation, a constructive approach is hardly effective. Why we want to have a behaviorally active learner? According A. Mayer (2004) educators produce materials that require learning to be behaviorally active and not be "cognitively active." Is it constructivist approach is OK nowadays? Are we sure? Who can deny that the traditional teaching / learning is wrong? Science curricula and teaching methods are changing continuously. Traditional teaching has also changed. Such teaching is fundamentally different compared to the teaching of a few decades ago. Both the curriculum and the context are different. Teaching and learning process is unthinkable without modern ICT. This itself requires a qualitatively new approach in science teaching from the teacher`s side. Our imagination that traditional education is the same as one hundred years ago is incorrect. Is it reasonable to promote ‘constructivism’ as a theory appropriate for science teaching in an uncritical way? There is no universally correct theory. This question should be discussed as large as possible in different context by scholars and teachers.

Keywords :

constructivist approach, science education, traditional teaching

References :

Europe Needs More Scientists (2004). Report of the High Level Group on Human Re-sources for Science and Technology in Europe. Brussels. Available on the Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2004/sciprof/pdf/final_en.pdf (Accessed 08/04/2011).
Interests & Recruitment in Science: Factors influencing recruitment, retention and gender equity in science, technology and mathematics higher education (2011). Available on the Internet: http://iris.fp-7.org/partners/associated-partners/ (Accessed 08/04/2011).
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2): 75–86.
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59 (1): 14-19.
S&T report, EUROBAROMETER (2010). Available on the Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_340_en.pdf (Accessed 08/04/2011).
Relevance of Science Education, ROSE (2004). Available on the Internet: http://www.roseproject.no/ (Accessed 08/04/2011).

Cite as :

Lamanauskas, V. (2011). Tradicinio ir konstruktyvaus gamtamokslinio ugdymo paralelės [The parallels of traditional and constructive natural science education]. Gamtamokslinis ugdymas / Natural Science Education, 8(1), 4-7. https://doi.org/10.48127/gu-nse/11.8.04