[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
For my part, the c-words have been bouncing around since the 70s at least, and with not a great deal of consistency among writers in how they are used.
I'd agree that as far as psychology is concerned, particularly what used to be called cognitive developmental psychology, constructivism was a Piagetian notion. It was really just the, at the time, in the 60s, radical claim that ideas and concepts, even those as basic as time, space, gross properties of matter, etc. were not imposed on us by an objective external reality, nor inherited by us from our ancestors genetically (having been imposed on them), but were individually constructed through experience (with a bit of social input). One could see the idea, which certainly caught on in intellectual circles in the 70s, as akin to Kuhn's notion that a lot of what science tells us is more or less what scientists are currently telling one another, and could well be different (i.e. that scientific truth is historically contingent, which does not mean it has no connection to experience and data, just a rather complex and socially mediated connection).
And the next step was the debate between those who thought it was mostly individual construction, and those who thought that it was a lot more social (interpersonal as the means) and cultural (shared and inherited in the community), hence social or sociocultural constructivism. [Constructionism vs. constructivism has always seemed to me just a two-term resource for people who wanted to distinguish their own views from others that were mostly similar.]
So, I would say that CHAT is conceptually (if not historically) a variety of sociocultural constructivism, certainly in LSV's original formulation, and while he and Piaget were developing these ideas in the first half of the century, they only became intellectual trends, affecting thinking in many areas, much later.
Philosophers, of course, view these not so much as matters of how to understand human intellectual development of concepts and concept-using practices, but rather as claims about the nature of reality (ontology) or the ways reality can be known (epistemology). But all that fell victim to the Culture Wars, and name-calling, esp. in the US. So far as I can see, nothing useful can be said about any definite implications from data about development or meaning-making practices to conclusions about epistemology or ontology in general. Many people disagree.
As to mixing ideas, theories, or methods from different "camps", politics apart, I stand with re-mix culture (and Feyerabend); anything goes! But it helps to have a fairly good understanding, including of the intellectual history of the approaches, when you mix them together. And the criterion of success is simply what gives you interesting results! Theories are tools, not gods.
JAY.
Jay Lemke
Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
Educational Studies
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
Visiting Scholar
Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition
University of California -- San Diego
La Jolla, CA
USA 92093
On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Jenna McWilliams wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm really enjoying this conversation, as it aligns really nicely with issues I'm grappling with both in my graduate work and in my research projects and groups.
>
> Though I'm a shameless self-promoter, I normally wouldn't plug my blog in such an esteemed listserv--except that I recently published a post about the (ir)reconcilability of sociocultural and cognitivist learning theories (at http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-i-am-not-constructionist.html, if you want to see). It's the conversation below the post that interests me now--a fun debate has started about whether pulling from sociocultural and cognitivist theories can be called "synthesis" or "cherrypicking." I fall on the "cherrypicking" side of things, though I can acknowledge how rhetorically poor that term is.
>
> I was going to post some of this thread in the comments section before I started worrying about the appropriateness of doing that, so instead I'll just set forth a plea to anyone who's interested to join in on the conversation. My readers and I would be most grateful for any thoughts you are willing to offer.
>
> Thanks for this listserv, which is supporting my knowledge acquisition and enabling me to participate in knowledge production.
>
> jenna
>
>
>
> ~~
>
> Jenna McWilliams
> Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
> ~
> http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
> http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com
> ~
> jenmcwil@indiana.edu
> jennamcjenna@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Michael Glassman wrote:
>
>> Helen,
>>
>> Just to put in my two cents. Constructivism itself is an epistemological stance. I had always thought the term was coined by Kohlberg, but googling around it seems to come from Piaget in 1967 (so it is doubtful Vygtosky would have thought of himself at least as a constructivist). It suggests that the way in which knowledge comes into existence is through an individual's construction based on experience in the world around them, rather than being given (some interpretations of behaviorism) or realized based on experience unlocking some warehouse of the mind (Chomsky). The learning paradox which was recently mentioned actually came out of a debate between Piaget and Vygotsky (although the actual terms emerged out of a later discussion of the debate) - with the Chomskyites arguing about whether you can know if something should be recognized as something that should go into the construction of knowledge if you do not already have some knowledge that it is important.
>>
>> Social constructivism is not quite as well developed, but it suggests the same constructivist epistemological stance, but instead of focusing on how the individual constructs knowledge out of their experience in the world they construct their knowledge of the world through their experience in social relationships. The social relationships tend to take some type of precedence so that the construction of knowledge is not universal but delineated and defined by social experience. I myself tend to take this view of Vygotsky but not everybody does (and it is also a little hard to square with scientific concepts which have been discussed recently).
>>
>> Constructionism in my experience has been more reserved for more immediate, process oriented knowledge building or the process of knowing, many times variations of off shoots from Dewey's Instrumental Pragmatism by people such as Gergen, Harre and Rorty. But other people use constructivism and constructionism interchangably. Again, from my perspective there is a difference in an epistemological stance of constructivism and constructionism. Possibly the dividing factor is the constructivism assume a metaphysics while constructionsim seems to more often argue against one.
>>
>> CHAT - cultural historical activity theory - well that's a lot. My own view is that within this sort of umbrella of ideas there is no single epistemological stance or a definite view of a metaphysic. Meaning I think you can find social constructivists, constructionists, and perhaps even the odd constructivist hiding in a corner somehwere.
>>
>> Anyway, I hope that is some help.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
>> Sent: Wed 4/7/2010 8:57 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Cc: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
>> Subject: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
>>
>>
>>
>> In the xmca archive there is much discussion about the differences between
>> just these two modifiers. Never settled, perhaps never will. From a
>> linguist standpoint one is active and one is passive.
>>
>> Helen; from my own experience when I wrote my master's thesis ( A
>> Vygotskian perspective on Special Education Transition Services) my
>> supervisor kept asking if I wouldn't be better off making the argument
>> from an Ericson point of view so I believe mainstream acadamia is still
>> confused about what cultural-historical theory is; however, I believe I am
>> safe in saying it is not social constructivism. Has your supervisor
>> specifically stated where they are finding the descrepancies in your
>> argument? In my thesis I wanted to use more Valsiner and Van der Veer
>> references but found they did not coexist very well with the Vygotsky,
>> Luria, Scribner, and Cole cross cultural studies I was referencing.
>>
>> Maybe this helps, maybe this muddies the water?
>>
>> eric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Helen Grimmett <helen.grimmett@education.monash.edu.au>
>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>> 04/06/2010 09:38 PM
>> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>
>>
>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> cc:
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Book review ol talk and texts
>>
>>
>> Can I please ask a (probably extremely naive) question? What are the
>> differences between social constructivism (as referred to in this book
>> review) and cultural-historical theory? My supervisor keeps telling me I
>> am confusing my arguments by using references from both paradigms, but I
>> still haven't managed to grasp what the difference is.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Helen
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 11:59 am
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Book review ol talk and texts
>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> Cc: Roy Pea <roypea@stanford.edu>
>>
>>> Thanks for the review, Larry.
>>> So many important issue intersect there.
>>> Gotta find out what Joe Polman and Roy Pea have to offer on the
>>> learningparadox. Thought Newman et al. set that one to rest back in
>>> the last
>>> millennium!! And to think that it involves a revival of the idea of
>>> a zoped
>>> in transformative communication! Super.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>> mike
>>>
>>> Roy-- Can you send us the text? Really sounds interesting.
>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just read this review of a new book that I thought may be
>>> interesting to
>>>> some of the CHAT community so I''ve attached the review. David
>>> Olson wrote
>>>> one of the chapters.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>> <winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca