Re: All the way with Piaget (fwd)

maria judith (costlins who-is-at ism.com.br)
Wed, 06 May 1998 13:19:37 -0200

"acquisition" is not incompatible with "construction". one can have an
"acquisition" through the "construction". The idea of "acquisiton" can
be understood as something new you didn't had. it doesn't matter what
the way was to have now this "acquisition", which can be by
"construction" or another way. maria judith lins

Dewey Dykstra, Jr. wrote:
>
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 15:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
> >From: David Kirshner <c1474 who-is-at er.uqam.ca>
> >To: jpang who-is-at unix1.sncc.lsu.edu
> >Subject: Re: All the way with Piaget
> >
> >JeongSuk,
> >Please post the following reply to xmca.
> >
> >At 08:32 PM 5/5/98 +0900, Naoki Euno wrote:
> >>
> >>Is this paraphrasing showing that the problem of practice of reification
> >>of "mental" is just the other side of the coin of the problem of practice of
> >>reification of "objective socail" or "objective macro social structure"?
> >>
> >>Of course, this "the other side of coin" is not the solution.
> >>
> >
> >Naoki,
> >Your comment brings to my mind the recent _Educational Researcher_ article
> >(27(2), pp. 4-13, March, 1998) by Anna Sfard in which she groups together
> >sociocultural and constructivist theorizing as subscribing to the same
> >Acquisition Metaphor (AM), in contrast with other theories that
> >subscribe to the Participation Metaphor (PM):
> >
> > Finally, the dichotomy between acquisition and participation should
> > not be mistaken for the well-known distinction between individualist
> > and social perspectives on learning. ... According to the distinction
> > proposed in this article, theories that speak about reception
> > of knowledge and those that view learning as internalization
> > of socially established concepts belong to the same category
> > (AM), whereas on the individual/social axis, they must be placed
> > at opposite poles. ... It is important to understand that the two
> > distinctions were made according to different criteria: While the
> > acquisition/participation division is ontological in nature and
> > draws on two radically different answers to the question, "What
> > is this thing called learning?," the individual/social dichotomy does
> > not imply a controversy as to the definition of learning, but rather
> > rests on differing visions of the mechanisms of learning. (p. 7)
> >
> >I recommend her article as a clear and forceful analysis of
> >current upheavals in cognitive theorizing.
> >
> >David Kirshner,
> >Louisiana State University
> >cikirs who-is-at lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu
>
> How can someone attribute "acquisition" to a position which states that
> people "construct" their own understanding? This characterization is
> certainly inappropriate for describing radical constructivism.
>
> Dewey
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105
> Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775
> Department of Physics/MCF421/418 Fax: (208)385-4330
> Boise State University dykstrad who-is-at bsumail.idbsu.edu
> 1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
> Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper
>
> "Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and
> are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external
> world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld,
> 1938.
> "Every [person's] world picture is and always remains a construct
> of [their] mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence."
> --E. Schrodinger in Mind and Matter, 1958.
> "Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe." --K. Amdahl in
> There Are No Electrons, 1991.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++