These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
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