Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Jenna-- No wonder you are so quiet on XMCA-- you are busy in another
interesting discussion, differently mediated!

So, vis a vis the local conversation, how do constructivism or
constructionism
relate to cultural-historical theories?
mike

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Jenna McWilliams <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu>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