Re: terms, concepts and definitions

nate (schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu)
Tue, 18 May 1999 16:45:04 -0500

My initial thoughts is they emerged from similar concerns but from
different philosophical traditions. Like the old puzzle, "if a tree falls
in the woods does anyone hear it". I think it would be fair to say the
constructivist would say no and the behaviorist would say yes.
Cultural-historical theory, at least for me, is an attempt to get past that
ancient dualism. In Activity Theory, Cultural-historical, sociohistorical
psychology etc. there is an attempt to look at the dialectical unity of the
individual and society, environment, world etc. This is why there is
emphasis on such things as activity, context, culture, history etc. This
difference in emphasis has created such terms as co-contruction, ZPD,
appropriation, legitimate perpheral participation etc. which all in their
own way are attempts at seeing "constructivism" as a process that in not
necessarily located in an individual or group of individuals. If you
haven't read Vera's paper I find it a very good explanation and comparison
between the sociohistorical approach and social constructivism.

http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/holbrook.html

----- Original Message -----
From: Margie Gallego <mgallego who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 12:35 PM
Subject: terms, concepts and definitions

> Hello --
>
> 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
>
>
>