[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
Helen
Martin Packer's 2 chapters recently posted is very helpful. One chapter on epistemology and the other on ontology. The tension between these two "ideas" helps me tease out the differences
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>
Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 6:32 am
Subject: RE: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> 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
> supervisorspecifically 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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca