Week+5

Noddings (1990):
 * To what degree do we agree that constructivism is post-epistemological and doesn't address questions of truth, justification of belief, and the nature of evidence? (pg.12) (DOS)
 * According to the authors, what are the basic methodological implications to constructive notions of education? How do these implications tie into the 1989 NCTM Standards and different interpretations amongst different stakeholders regarding these implications (p 15-17)? (JLK)
 * Noddings references "Knowledge" and "knowledge". What is the difference between these two? (JLK)

von Glasersfeld (1990):
 * In discussing radical constructivism, the author points to the avoidance of "the traditional notion of Truth". How does this connect to Cobb's "reality" and "Reality"? (JLK)

Goldin (1990):

Steffe & Kieren (1994/2004):
 * According to these authors, what were the major outcomes of the Montreal PME conference? (JLK)
 * As a summary, what were some of the major debates (in JRME, conferences, and research) reported by the authors, and how did such debates help to shape some of the different perspectives regarding constructivism? (JLK)

Ernest (1996):
 * Ernest favors social constructivism and offers some critiques on the other three positions he outlines. What critiques would other authors have for social constructivism? (DOS)
 * What are the implications for your views on learning and teaching if you take an absolutist or fallibilist epistemology? (DOS)(JMG)
 * Was there any criticism from researchers in the other branches of constructivism regarding how accurately their areas are portrayed? (JMG)

Confrey (1995):

Across the articles: • What are similarities and differences of the different types of constructivism? (AJ) • How would a constructivist engage in conversation about epistemology? And why? (AJ) • How do methodological and pedagogical (teaching/learning) perspectives of constructivism relate? (AJ)r • What are the paradoxes identified across the readings, pertaining to truth, thinking, learning, and mathematics? What are the implications of such paradoxes? (JLK)

Input/output way of thinking: senses Constructivism in that knowledge is not passively received; but rejects the latter second to von Glasersfeld first principle. || No social interaction Focus on observable outcomes, lack of attention to process ||  || (Goldin) || ‘soft’ computer (brain-as-machine) || Newtonian Absolute space with physical objects || Absolutist Perspective || Individual “only tries to account for the knowledge representation of individuals” (p. 340, Ernest, 1996). Accepts 1st principle of von Glasersfeld, but not the 2nd) “not fit, not viable” in absolutist sense || No social interaction Focus on observable outcomes, attention to process is only for matching (not fitting) ||  || (von Glasersfeld, Piaget, Confrey, Steffe, Kieren) || Evolving, adapting, isolated biological organism || Subject’s private domain of experience || Fallibilist Perspective || Individual Focus more on biological, evolutionary, “survival of the fit,” Isolated individual / skeptic – not really assume what’s known Viability stops the “slippery slope” to complete ‘relativism’ || Social interaction only part of the environment Lack of consideration for shared knowledge Describing the constraints: related to viability Lack of quantifiable comparisons ||   || (Ernest, Bauersfeld) || Persons in conversation || Socially constructed, shared world || Fallibilist Perspective || Individual & Social Community creates it’s own shared knowledge/truth/reality Focus on language and social construction of meaning || Neglect other forms of interactions (e.g., private, personal) – refuted with the notion that these are still social. ||  ||
 * Type of constructivism || Metaphor for the mind || Model of the world || Epistemology || General Focus || Criticism || Implications for Teaching/learning ||
 * Information-processing constructivism || Computer, unfeeling thinking machine || Newtonian Absolute space with physical objects (Scientific Realism) || Absolutist Perspective || Individual
 * Weak constructivism
 * Radical constructivism
 * Social constructivism