This article explores some implications of using a critical realist theoretical framework for the study of education, in particular the core activities of learning and teaching. Many approaches have been made to understanding learning and teaching, but they tend to fall into one of two camps. The first includes approaches known as objectivism, instructivism and behaviourism, and is interpreted here as embodying principles of empiricism. The second comprises various takes on constructivism, particularly social constructivism, and is interpreted here as embodying (...) idealism. This paper does not wholly endorse or reject either objectivism or constructivism, but draws elements from each. The key difference for educators is that the starting position is not the transmission of knowledge, as in objectivism, or the construction of knowledge by learners, as in social constructivism. Instead it foregrounds the learning environment, arising from the realist premise that the possibilities for knowledge are given in the ontology. For educators this means the learning environment is not simply the location of learning, as widely construed, but the set of conditions that enable and constrain learning. (shrink)

This paper discusses the reception and impact of Berger and Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality. The article will, first, address Berger and Luckmann themselves and their approach to the book. In the next part, we will sketch the diffusion of the basic concept of the book. Then we want to show that the reception exhibits a particular open form, which allowed it to disperse into extremely different disciplines not only of the social sciences and the humanities. It is the (...) disciplinary distance in particular that detaches the diffusion of the concept from reference to the book. In the next part, we can see that this detachment leads to the variation of approaches to social construction. Particularly, it is the misidentification with constructivism that leads to misunderstandings, which will then be clarified in contrast to our reconsideration of the basic thesis of SCR. The conclusion will state that Berger and Luckmann’s concept therefore constitutes the common denominator of social constructivist approaches. (shrink)

Taking its orientation from Peter Winch, this article critiques from a Wittgensteinian point of view some “theoreticist” tendencies within constructivism. At the heart of constructivism is the deeply Wittgensteinian idea that the world as we know and understand it is the product of human intelligence and interests. The usefulness of this idea can be vitiated by a failure to distinguish conceptual from empirical questions. I argue that such a failure characterises two influential constructivist theories, those of Ernst von Glasersfeld and (...) David Bloor. These are considered in turn. Both theories seek to give a general, causal account of knowledge: von Glasersfeld's in term of cognitive subjectivity, Bloor's in terms of social agreement. Ironically, given that both writers cite Wittgenstein as a source of theoretical inspiration, assumptions of both theories run counter to key Wittgensteinian arguments. To show that Wittgenstein's views offer no solace to the realist, the article closes with a brief consideration of John Searle's theory of knowledge. (shrink)