As an official "lurker" to these ongoing conversations,
I was intrigued by the previous discussion of praxis...
this lead me to consider another set of terms often
used synomously or appear to be..
That is what is the difference between being a
"constructivist" and being a teacher/researcher
with a cultural historical theoretical orientation?
My sense of the bit of reading I've done is that
constructivist view the learning process as
emerging (constructed) among participants.
This seems similar to the socially mediated
construction of knowledge referred to in
cultural historical theory.
Is one difference the lack of history in constructivism?
The focus seems to be the present construction
in the moment, within a classroom, etc.
Does this then also imply a lack of culture as an influence
in learing (for good or bad)...
And does this then mean if no culture no history;
no need for reflection upon oppression, etc.
which leads us back to the idea of praxis?
Is Cultural Historical Theory a "type" of constructivism?
Is Constructivism the superordinate concept here?
Any thoughts?,
thanks
Margie Gallego