Kind Of Constructivism Research Articles

Kinmaking, progeneration, and ethnography

Philosophers of biology and biologists themselves for the most part assume that the concept of kin is progenerative: what makes two individuals kin is a direct or indirect function of reproduction. Derivatively, kinship might likewise be presumed to be progenerative in nature. Yet a prominent view of kinship in contemporary cultural anthropology is a kind of constructivism or performativism that rejects such progenerativist views. This paper critically examines an influential line of thinking used to critique progenerativism and support performativism that cites cross-cultural diversity in what I will call kinmaking. I challenge several key assumptions made in moving from this appeal to ethnography to conclusions about kinship and progeneration, arguing that closer scrutiny of both the ethnographic record and inferences that draw on it in fact support progenerative views of kinmaking.

From Constructivist Educational Technology to Mobile Constructivism: How mobile learning serves constructivism?

Constructivist theory of learning suggests that individuals construct meaning through authentic experiences and social interactions. Thanks to the ample learning experiences and opportunities for unlimited interaction anywhere, anytime, mobile technologies have given birth to a concept called mobile learning. However, there seems a need to ground mobile learning on constructivist learning principles, i.e. define a new scope for constructivism: “mobile constructivism.” This paper aimed to explore the relationship between constructivism and mobile learning and how they serve each other. To this end, articles which have based mobile learning activities on constructivist learning principles were reviewed systematically. Results were synthesized and discussed under four major themes: the expansive potential of constructivist educational technology, integrating different kinds of constructivism in mobile learning, social consequences of mobile learning; and elemental principles of “mobile constructivism”

Project-Based Learning Evaluation from Students’ and Supervisors’ Perspectives: A Qualitative Research at Polytechnic Malaysia

The purpose of this case study was to evaluate the Project-Based Learning that was implemented at the Mechanical Engineering Department in a polytechnic in Malaysia. One kind of constructivism, Project-Based Learning was introduced into the Malaysian polytechnics curriculum regarding to result creative and innovative human resources. This study involved a random sample of 118 students and 43 supervisors in the Mechanical Engineering Department. The study found that both the students and supervisors agreed that Project-Based Learning approach is appropriate for the final project course J5012. In addition, both groups of respondents believed that the supervisors possesed adequate technical knowledge and implemented supervisory duties effectively. Nevertheless, students perceived the module content was hard to understand. The students barely agreed that the machines and equipments at the polytechnic were appropriate for the project. Positively, Polytechnic Kota Bharu should introduce a formal course of Project-Based Learning to the polytechnic system in Malaysia.

The Effects of Social Constructivist Approach on the Learners’ Problem Solving and Metacognitive Levels

Problem statement: Socio-cultural constructivism; stressing the social context, culture and collaborative side of learning, is another kind of constructivism. The social constructivist approach has positive effects on learners. It can be said that in improving problem solving and met cognitive awareness skills, which are amongst basic skills every individual should possess today. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there is a significant difference in the learners’ problem solving skills and met cognitive levels when the authentic task-based social constructivist approach is used in an experimental group and a traditional approach is used in a control group. Approach: In the research, semi-experimental design with pretest-posttest control groups has been used. The experimental group was applied, based on the constructivist approach, the authentic task-based collaborative learning process more efficient. On the other hand, the control group was put in learning environments based on the meaningful learning approach. In the research, 89 teacher candidates were included in the experimental group and 48 teacher candidates were included in the control group. The “Problem Solving Scale”, developed by Heppner and Peterson and adapted was used for acquiring the data about problem solving skills. “Metacognitive awareness scale”, developed was used for acquiring the data about metacognitive levels. Results: At the end of the research, it was observed that the difference in the experimental group teacher candidates’ problem solving skills and metacognitive levels was higher than the control group and statistically significant. Conclusion: According to this finding, it is appropriate to say that the task-based social constructivist approach has positive effects on teacher c candidates’ problem solving skills and metacognitive levels.

On Mentors, Cognitive Development, Education, and Constructivism: An Interview with Juan Pascual-Leone

In an interview format, Juan Pascual-Leone discusses the historical Piagetian origins of his dialectical theory of constructive operators (TCO) to ground the concepts intuitively and relate them to Piaget’s notions.The narrative of historical events helps to exhibit theoretical contrasts and differences of opinion that emerged between him and his teacher Piaget. Pascual-Leone discusses differences between his organismic model of mental processing and other current models of psychological information-processing and shows how the “learning paradox” problem of cognitive development can be solved. He sheds light on his intellectual personal history, contrasts psychology with psychiatry, and offers memories about personal experiences with Herman Witkin and Jean Piaget. He comments also on epistemological issues important for science education and cognitive psychology: the meaning and kinds of constructivism and his choice of dialectical constructivism as the most promising epistemology for psychology and education. The potential practical usefulness for educators of the TCO and its methods of rational task analysis is explored.

Is Objective Moral Justification Possible on a Quasi-realist Foundation?

This essay juxtaposes the position in metaethics defended, expressivism with quasirealistic trimmings, with the ancient problem of relativism. It argues that, perhaps surprisingly, there is less of a problem of normative truth on this approach than on others. Because ethics is not in the business of representing aspects of the world, there is no way to argue for a plurality of moral truths, simply from the existence of a plurality of moral opinions. The essay also argues that other approaches, which superficially seem better adapted to defending robust and substantive conceptions of moral truth, in fact face more danger from the threat of relativism. This is particularly so in the case of 'secondary quality' or 'response-dependent' approaches, but also in the case of certain kinds of constructivism.

Has constructivism become too comfortable?

Although it can be argued that constructivist epistemologies have been around for a long time (Mousley, 1993; von Glasersfeld, 1983), perhaps the first time the international mathematics education research community was directly confronted with the claims of radical constructivism was at the 11th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), held in Montreal in 1987. At that conference, the level of understanding of what radical constructivism might mean ranged from high, for those who were presenting keynote addresses (Kilpatrick, 1987; Sinclair, 1987), to almost nothing for many in the audience. The terminology was new, and it took time to bridge the gulf between those who were actively debating and researching constructivist ideas and those who had been researching and debating issues in other areas. Participants at that 1987 Montreal Conference could not miss the intensity of . feeling among those debating facets of radical constructivism. Like anythmg new, there seemed to be an aura about the word, and with retrospect, it is not surprising that over the past ten years, the major tenets of "radical constructivism" have defined an important, albeit sometimes unconscious, epistemological framework for' many mathematics education researchers. At the same time, other kinds of constructivism have been posited, to the extent that Phillips (1995) was able to assert that "constructivism has many sects" (p. 1), each of which harbours some distrust of its rivals. In' the 1990s curriculum frameworks for school mathematics and teacher education programs have increasingly carried specific references to radical and other varieties of constructivism. One often hears expressions such as the "constructivist classroom" and the "constructivist teacher" (Bosse, 1995). But what do such expressions really mean? And, when such words flow from the lips or pens of researchers, have the researchers thought about the implications of their utterances,' both with respect to the research framework within which they are operating, and from the perspective of the teachers and schools with whom they are working?