Dear Jenna and All,
Realizing that this discussion is no longer going on, I just wanted to thank you, Jenna, for your comments...Constructivism/Constructionism is a very important discussion internationally, for many reasons, especially in the West. The good news for many of you is that you can delete this message now, if not interested. I have attached my thoughts on this topic, but they were written many years ago....Perhaps the notes are not totally correct, or valid today...it was long ago....what is very important is the situation some face about *rigour*......We need to be clear about comparing apples and oranges.....Mike's note was very important for me, listed below..... The aspects of cultural mediation are so important, and also the aspect of the process of development. We need a historical clarification of the times of Vygotsky-Luria-Leontiev regarding their use/or none-use of research data in their writings (what was the actual political situation of using
statistical data in those days? I have read about this problem, but cannot comment on it now)....
Debates about *rigour* need to be placed in context, as we do not compare apples with oranges…I am also attaching our introduction to the Davydov book about the understanding of “non-classical” psychology….it leads to the understanding of “metacognition,” which is a key component in dialogues with many, including those in “traditional” cognitivist fields….I will restrain my thoughts to Chomsky here….we need to have a grounded understanding of Spinoza, inter alia, to understand cultural-historical theory, and we also need to know the deep theories/and times of Descartes….So, I will stop here….Hopefully, others will help us, especially our colleagues in Brazil.....
With very good wishes of Spring to all,
Dot
--- On Fri, 4/9/10, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
To: "Jenna McWilliams" <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu>
Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Friday, April 9, 2010, 12:52 PM
Debating *rigour *with respect to such a question*?
*My advice is to take a good novel to read when caught in such
circumstances. Rigourous with respect to what?
Is a psychological experiment about number calculation procesess more
rigorous than an ethnogrpahic account
of "the same" topic (I almost slipped and wrote phenomenon!).
My guess vis a vis my own question? Piagetian social constructivism saw
culture as ailement for the mind that varied along a scale from less to more
(never considered obesity, i guess). Vygotskian cultural-historical
psycholoy places cultural mediation in the center of the process, making all
Piageian binaries into fuzzy trinaries for which it is always
necessary to rise to the concrete. Of course one person's concrete is
another's "whaaat" but at least they are
trying to understand each other within a more or less mutually recognizable
point of view. Constructionism includes cultural practices, making things.
But it does not theorize them in chat terms.
mike
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Jenna McWilliams <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu>wrote:
> I don't know! That's why I've pitched this issue to you guys.
>
> I recently sat on the sidelines watching a pair of academics argue over
> whether cultural-historical learning theories are as theoretically rigorous
> as cognitivist theories. As you might imagine, the cognitivist argued they
> aren't as rigorous, while the situative theorist argued they were. I wonder
> if you xmca-ers have thoughts on this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~
>
> 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 3:50 PM, mike cole wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Attachment:
Constructivism_2003.doc
Description: MS-Word document
Attachment:
Introduction to Davydov.doc
Description: MS-Word document
Attachment:
Vygotsky_II[1].pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca