Talk:Constructivist epistemology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Misnomer?
Isn't Constructivist_epistemology a bit of a misnomer? It's also an ontological theory? I don't understand the distinction between this and Social constructionism, should they be merged?
- I think the difference is in it's radicality. Whereas social constructionism still accepts the influence of society and culture, radical constructivist epistemology, in the sense of Varela and Maturana, does not - it's much closer to a solipcistic point of view. Oh, and they come to different conclusions: Varela and Maturana emphasize the resposibility of the constructing subject. This isn't that important in social constructionism. (I hope I got the vocabularly right, I learned it all in German...) --denny vrandečić 09:39, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
-
- It seems to me that Empiricists long ago claimed the realm of Epistemology and Constructivists are attempting to reclaim some part
of it. The article should be changed to "Constructivism" since constrcutivism and empiricism are just different epistemological methodologies.
Also last paragraph ain't NPOV.
"Social constructivism is a form of constructivism based on the sociological and social psychological concept of social constructionism"
Stack overflow.
[edit] Proposal
Perhaps there's a case for consistently clarifying constructioNism and constructiVism...
- Social constructionism "mild" SC (Berger & Luckmann)
- Social constructivism "strong" SC based on Sociology of scientific knowledge and Constructivist epistemology
- Constructivist epistemology - I agree that there is a good case for renaming the page Constructivism, but this term means many things. There should be a stub (Constructivism) that leads here. Can a stub lead to an article with the same name?
Bryan 16:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Education vs Epistemology
This article talks about education whether than epistemology. It needs a profund modification that would deserve a stub. Chrisdel 09:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've marked the article with CleanupConfusing. Chrisdel 15:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Constructivism describes learning in a community context: the ZPD. It is an epistemology, like didactic is. The idea is that kids learn only so much on their own, it is in the partnership with their parents that they get their real start. Then, they learn from the community. As they progress from novice to expert, they become more confident in the group setting, eventually making significant contributions: constructing knowledge.
-
- The use of a theory of knowledge is different than a discussion about that theory of knowledge. If there really is an educational model with the name "Constructivist epistemology" this article could be that, but it should be labeled "Constructivist epistemology (eduction)". Especially in the constructivism disambiguation page. Rather, this article uses very little space expanding the topic from the short description already given in the Epistemology page. I'd favor changing the above proposal to split this in to three articles.
- One merged with "social constructionism",
- One as "constructivism_(education)",
- and maybe one that needs a lot of improvements called "constructivism_(philosophy)"
- Littlepinkpig 06:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- The use of a theory of knowledge is different than a discussion about that theory of knowledge. If there really is an educational model with the name "Constructivist epistemology" this article could be that, but it should be labeled "Constructivist epistemology (eduction)". Especially in the constructivism disambiguation page. Rather, this article uses very little space expanding the topic from the short description already given in the Epistemology page. I'd favor changing the above proposal to split this in to three articles.
[edit] Trivial constructivism
I moved the following here, because an article and a list are not the same thing. This should be fleshed out, and complete sentences should be used:
- Also known as cognitive constructivism. Knowledge and reality is actively constructed by the individual, not passively received from the environment. This is the simplest form of constructivism.
-Seth Mahoney 22:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I made some grammatical and logical corrections. I'm not an expert on this topic, but I think I've left the accuracy intact. Let me know if this is not the case. 70.108.124.62 01:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Ryan Sommers
[edit] Deleuze
I just thought Gilles Deleuze being listed as a proponent of social constructivism is misleading. Although he recognizes all categories (ie. gender, sexuality, delinquincy etc.) are historical, they are a combination of social and MATERIAL processes. It is fairly evident throughout difference and repetition and his work with guattari that he is a realist, although avoiding the problem of essentialism. Great reference on this is Manuel De Landa's Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. Sorry if I'm being anal :D.
- Alright: I just mistook your edit for a random removal. (Edit summaries help avoid that problem.) :) --Emufarmers(T/C) 09:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proponents list
I've added some new proponents that cannot be avoided in the study of this subject : G Vico, Gaston Bachelard, Jean Piaget, Herbert Simon, Edgar Morin, Gregory Bateson, Jean-Louis Le Moigne (see "Le Moigne's Defense of Constructivism" by E. Von Glasersfeld). Chrisdel 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if all the authors in the proponents list are really relevant. For instance, i'm not sure about : Michael Dummett, Rolf Breuer, George Kelly, Rupert Riedl, David Rosenhan, Gerhard Roth, Gabriel Stolzenberg, Alexander Wendt ? George Kelly for example, according to wikipedia, is a psychologist who developped Personal construct psychology. Then he is not a major proponent for constructivism in epistemology and he could have only a reference in the text in a paragraph talking about this subject. Chrisdel 12:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
2 new proponents added, same question : are they really relevant ? For the example i delete George Kelly (see above). Chrisdel 11:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I hear your point. I think Kelly was a proponent of constructivism in epistemology -- but went further to argue the application of that epistemology to therapy. I would compare his role to that of, say, Lenin in communist epistemology. B. Mistler 04:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok then for Kelly. What about the others ? Does anyone have an idea ? It would be good if each proponent could have a few lines in the text. Chrisdel 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal: Radical Constructivism - Split the topic
I have huge difficulties putting "social constructivism", which is inherently inter-ego and not exactly revolutionary, and another approach applying the whole spectrum of systems theories to neuro sciences (e.g. Heinz von Foerster) and yet another approach based on meme-gene coevolution, evolutionary game theory, non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the like. I would like to put it this way:
- The social sciences approach
- The neuro science approach and the
- Dissipative system/ negative entropy/ sunspot event approach
While the topic is clearly the same, the categories are too different to be able to exchange meaningful memes. Especially the third approach is quite mathematical, opening up new channels of communication to physicists (e.g. Schrödinger, Erwin: "What is life?")and the like. The one problem I see is that equations not transferable to English language and word based social theories not transferable to mathematics cannot meaningfully interoperate. And the other is Constructivism essentially is so radical, people tend to view it as a nice set of words, like a metaphor. If you tell them, this is mathematically/ neuro-scientifically rigid, as far as rigidity exists anyway, then there is a totally different force confronting old memes. When Heinz von Foerster says "Realität? Wo haben Sie die denn?" (the meaning is close to: Reality? Can you show me some?) it really means: there is no absolute space (Einstein), there is no absolute time (Einstein), there is no absolute reality (Heisenberg) and there is nothing which is inherently you. And this is not a metaphor, this is hard science as far as we can believe that hard science exists. If you call this viewpoint constructivism, radical constructivism or anything else doesn't matter in so far. What matters is a statement derived by an empirical process, which is not the empirical process of social sciences as we know them. Very short: Just split "social constructivism"/ "radical constructivism". Comments? Hirsch.im.wald 20:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with "neuro science etc.", but for my part i would expect from this article to discuss the positivism hypothesis on knowledge as did french writer Jean-Louis Le Moigne (see "A Principal Exposition of Jean-Louis Le Moigne’s Systemic Theory" by Darek M. Eriksson or "Le Moigne's Defense of Constructivism" by E. Von Glasersfeld). That is phenomenologic hypothesis vs ontologic, teleologic (finality) vs deterministic and then systemic modelling principle vs analytic modelling. For me social constructivism, radical constructivism etc all say the same thing but with different approach and words. The idea of an encyclopedic article would be i beleive to make the connections : that would mean to not be too specific with such word or the other. In few words : for me the words radical or social are not necessary for the ideas of constructivism, they are only interesting historically. Chrisdel 12:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
As applied to education, kids are encouraged to create their own discovery agenda in groups; they collect observations, they set their rules (called rubics), and network into the local (and Internet) community.
Key components are the zone of proximal development (ZPD), scaffolding, transformitive communication (TC), and situated learning.
Also you have student (mis-)conceptions, sometimes thought of as child science. Children are not wrong, they are "intelligently" wrong, they believe what they believe because it works for them. So, dont mess with their reality.
The ideas that they bring to school become springboards for inquiry. They learn together what is up w/ phenomena. This is better because students tend to disbelieve teachers anyway, and preserve their misconceptions for community life. If the community is doing the investigating, truly accurate (accepted) science becomes the popular perception.
Students take ownership for their work on every level; they take responsibility for their education. Most important, they learn to think and to learn: learning to learn. This is the desire of every nation on the Earth: that children learn to learn.
In science studies, rather than repeat experiments done a thousand times before with predictable results, kids create science that is relevant to their environment so that their science can have some positive impact. In that way, they join the research community: the community of learning.
Constructivism is unpopular with the top-down arrangement of governance; kids learn pure inquiry techniques that will, of course, flush out corruption in the end. Not a good thing if you happen to be governance.
The role of the teacher is Humanist; she is a guide and facilitator. In transformative communication (TC, Pea), the teacher rescues the students when they get "situated" too far out in the deeper waters of discovery: overwhelmed and frustrated.
A big problem with science is that all discovery leads to new inquiry. Kids feel frustrated because they never really achieve solid learning. Science is so wishy-washy! Part of the task of the teacher is to assure them that this is OK.
- Interesting about the education approach. But there are other approach of constructivism from scientific disciplines as physics through quantum mechanics, cybernetics and systemic, management through decision making etc. Chrisdel 11:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Constructivist epistemology's History
How constructivism was constructed ? That's a question we can answer by looking at this word's history. I suggest that all the proponents list author's contributions be developped. Chrisdel 12:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reorganization
I've reorganized the article with these main parts : 1 History, 2 Constructivism's concepts and ideas, 3 Constructivism and sciences, 4 Constructivist trends, 5 Quotations, 6 Bibliography, 7 See also, 8 External links. Chrisdel 10:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moving content of paragraph "Social constructivist education" in article Constructivism (learning theory)
I suggest to move the content of the paragraph "Social constructivist education" which is about "A social constructivist learning intervention" in the article Constructivism (learning theory). Indeed, this paragraph is too long for Constructivist epistemology. Chrisdel 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Critics ?
More information on these critics recently added would be useful, as they are unknown in wikipedia... Chrisdel 02:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
