Volume 6 · Number 1 · Pages 58–65
Radical Constructivism Mainstreaming: A Desirable Endeavor? Critical Considerations using Examples from Educational Studies and Learning Theory

Theo Hug

Log in to download the full text for free

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment


Context: It is beyond doubt that RC has received a great deal of attention in educational studies and learning theory. But overall, the current situation seems to be rather ambivalent in view of the blurring of the various strands in constructivist discourses and the different ways of distinguishing and foregrounding constructivist positions. Correspondingly, there is a wide range of claims, from the claim that (radical) constructivism represents a mainstream endeavor to attributions of its being outdated, self-refuting or irrelevant. Purpose: The paper seeks to sound out the ambivalent situation of (radical) constructivism between “all” and “nothing” by examples of attributions of meaning to constructivist positions in academic everyday life and by challenging both prevalent criticisms of systemic-constructivist pedagogy and widespread broad classifications in learning theory. Method: The article critically reflects on (1) one-sentence “destructions” of constructivist positions, (2) Pongratz’s criticism of systemic-constructivist pedagogy, and (3) the threefold classification of the world of learning, i.e., behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Results: Both the current criticism of constructivism as a mainstream endeavor and evolutionary suggestions provided by the threefold classification are criticized. Although some constructivist concepts and distinctions are widely accepted today, often these achievements are not recognized as being rooted in constructivist discourses. Implications: As far as mainstreaming constructivism might be related to power politics, selling the “real thing,” and joining the ranks of truth-oriented Isms, it would not appear to be a desirable endeavor for those who rely on viability, circular foundations, relativist philosophy, and relationalist approaches. Nevertheless, clarifications of power relations and the interplay between constructivist analyses of politics and the politics of constructivism might contribute to overcoming the diffuse popularity of constructivist thought towards a better understanding of constructivist contributions to solution oriented, meaningful ways of dealing with urgent problems.

Key words: pedagogy, systemic pedagogy, learning theory, connectivism


Hug T. (2010) Radical constructivism mainstreaming: A desirable endeavor? Critical considerations using examples from educational studies and learning theory. Constructivist Foundations 6(1): 58–65. http://constructivist.info/6/1/058

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Similar articles

Bunnell P. & Riegler A. (2011) Maturana Across the Disciplines
Zimmermann E., Peschl M. F. & Römmer-Nossek B. (2010) Constructivist Curriculum Design for the Interdisciplinary Study Programme MEi:CogSci – A Case Study
Videla R. & Veloz T. (2023) The 4E Approach Applied to Education in the 21st Century
Clarke B. (2012) From Information to Cognition: The Systems Counterculture, Heinz von Foerster’s Pedagogy, and Second-Order Cybernetics
Penny S. (2023) Living in Mapworld: Academia, Symbolic Abstraction, and the Shift to Online Everything


Adam V. (2002) Konstruktivismus – eine Theorie macht Schule. Theoretische Grundlagen und Bestandsaufnahme konstruktivistischer Ansätze in Südtirol. Unpublished Laureats-Thesis: Free University of Bozen (Italy). ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Boettcher J. V. (1998) Pedagogy and learning strategies. California State University at Sacramento. Retrieved from http://vccslitonline.cc.va.us/usingweb/bckgrnd.htm on 30 May 2010. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Boghossian P. A. (2007) Fear of Knowledge. Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford, Clarendon. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bourdieu P. (1992) Rede und Antwort. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Originally published in French in 1987. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bowers C. A. (2005) The false promises of constructivist theories of learning: A global and ecological critique. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cigman R. & Davis A. (2009) (eds.) New philosophies of learning. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
De Haan G. & Rülcker T. (2009) Der Konstruktivismus als Grundlage für die Pädagogik. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main et al. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Diesbergen C. (1998) Radikal-konstruktivistische Pädagogik als problematische Konstruktion. Eine Studie zum radikalen Konstruktivismus und seiner Anwendung in der Pädagogik. Peter Lang, Frankfurt. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ertmer P. A. & Newby T. J. (1993) Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly 6(4): 50–72. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Esposito E. (2007) Die Fiktion der wahrscheinlichen Realität. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fosnot C. T. (2005) (ed.) Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1987) Siegener Gespräche über Radikalen Konstruktivismus. Ernst von Glasersfeld im Gespräch mit NIKOL. In: Schmidt S. J. (ed.) Der Diskurs des Radikalen Konstruktivismus. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main: 401–440. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1990) An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In: Davis R. B., Maher C. A. & Noddings N. (eds.) Monographs of the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, No. 4. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston VA: 19–29. http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/127
Glasersfeld E. von (1995) Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Falmer Press, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1996) Radikaler Konstruktivismus. Ideen, Ergebnisse, Probleme. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1997) The incommensurability of scientific and poetic knowledge. In: Methodologia 17: 1–7. http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/199
Glasersfeld E. von (1998) Die Radikal-konstruktivistische Wissenstheorie. Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften 9(4): 503–511 & 581–596. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1998) Konstruktivismus statt Erkenntnistheorie. In: Hug T. (ed.) Technologiekritik und Medienpädagogik. Zur Theorie und Praxis kritisch – reflexiver Me­dien­kommunikation. Schneider – Verlag Hohengehren, Baltmannsweiler: 9–21. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gruschka A. (2002) Didaktik. Das Kreuz mit der Vermittlung. Elf Einsprüche gegen den didaktischen Betrieb. Büchse der Pandora, Wetzlar. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Heyting F. G. (1997): Konstruktivistische Erziehungswissenschaft. In: Hierdeis H. & Hug T. (eds.) Taschenbuch der Pädagogik. 5. Auflage. Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, Baltmannsweiler: 400–408. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hug T. (2004): Konstruktivistische Pädagogik. In: Krüger H.-H. & Grunert C. (eds.) Wörterbuch Erziehungswissenschaft. VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften,Wiesbaden: 358–364. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kant I. (1983) What is enlightenment? In: Perpetual peace and other essays. Translated by Ted Humphrey. Hackett, Indianapolis: 41–46. Originally published in German in 1784. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kenny V. & Boxer P. (1990) The economy of discourses: A third order cybernetics? Human Systems Management 9(4): 205–224. Retrieved from http://www.oikos.org/discourses.htm on 30 May 2010. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lindemann H. (2006) Konstruktivismus und Pädagogik. Grundlagen, Modelle, Wege zur Praxis. Reinhardt, Munich. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. R. & Varela F. J. (1992) The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Shambhala, Boston. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Meyer-Drawe K. (2008) Diskurse des Lernens. Fink, Munich. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Mitterer J. (1992) Das Jenseits der Philosophie. Wider das dualistische Erkenntnisprinzip. Passagen, Vienna. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Murphy E. (1997) Characteristics of constructivist learning & teaching. Retrieved from http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emurphy/stemnet/cle3.html on 30 May 2010. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Nüse R., Groeben N., Freitag B. & Schreier M. (1991) Über die Erfindung/en des Radikalen Konstruktivismus. Kritische Gegenargumente aus psychologischer Sicht. Deutscher Studien Verlag, Weinheim. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Pongratz L. (2004) Untiefen im Mainstream. Zur Kritik konstruktivistisch-systemtheoretischer Pädagogik. Büchse der Pandora, Wetzlar. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Reich K. (2002) Grundfehler des Konstruktivismus – Eine Einführung in das konstruktivistische Denken unter Aufnahme von 10 häufig gehörten kritischen Einwänden. In: Fragner J., Greiner U. & Vorauer M. (eds.) Menschenbilder. Zur Auslöschung der anthropologischen Differenz. Schriften der Pädagogischen Akademie des Bundes in Oberösterreich, Linz. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Reich K. (2008) Konstruktivistische Didaktik. Lehren und Lernen aus interaktiver Sicht. Third edition including Methodenpool on CD. Beltz, Weinheim. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Risku H. & Peschl M. F. (eds.) Kognition und Technologie im kooperativen Lernen: Vom Wissenstransfer zur Knowledge Creation. V&R unipress: Vienna. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ryder M. (2010) Constructivist models. Retrieved from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html#constructivism on 30 May 2010. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Saalmann G. (2007) Arguments opposing the radicalism of radical constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 3(1): 1–6 & 16–18. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/3/1/001.saalmann
Schmidt S. J. (2005) Lernen, Wissen, Kompetenz, Kultur. Vorschläge zur Bestimmung von vier Unbekannten. Carl-Auer-Systeme, Heidelberg. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Schunk D. H. (2008) Learning theories: An educational perspective. 5th Edition. Pearson, Upper Saddle River NJ. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Siemens G. (2006) Connectivism: Learning theory or pastime of the self-amused? Retrieved from www.elearnspace.org/Articles/Connectivism_response.doc on 30 May 2010. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Woolfolk A. (2008) Pädagogische Psychologie. 10th edition. Pearson, Munich. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.