THE PARALLELS OF TRADITIONAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NATURAL SCIENCE EDUCATION

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 te-aching 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.