Re: All the way with Piaget (fwd)
Dewey Dykstra, Jr. (dykstrad who-is-at bsumail.idbsu.edu)
Wed, 6 May 1998 09:23:33 -0600
>---------- 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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++