Where is the mind?
Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development
(Cobb, 1994)
Abstract with my notes & references
Currently, considerable debate focuses on whether mind is located in the head or in the individual-in-social-action, and whether development is cognitive self-organisation or enculturation into established practice (for example, Fosnot, 1993; O'Loughlin, 1992; O'Loughlin, 1993).
In this article, I question assumptions that initiate this apparent forced choice between constructivist and sociocultural perspectives. I content that the two perspectives are complementary (also, Sfard, 1998). and keep the essential tension (Feyerabend).
Also, claims that either perspective captures the essence of people and communities should be rejected for pragmatic justifications that consider the contextual relevance and usefulness of a perspective. I argue that the sociocultural perspective informs theories of the conditions for the possibility of learning, whereas theories developed from the constructivist perspective focus on what students learn and the processes by which they do so.
Ps. Sfard’s (1998) two metaphors are: acquisition for constructivist and participation for sociocultural views.
References
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20.
Fosnot, C. T. (1993). Rethinking science education: A defense of Piagetian constructivism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1189-1201.
O'Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 791-820.
O'Loughlin, M. (1993). Some further questions for Piagetian constructivists: A reply to Fosnot. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1203-1207.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development
(Cobb, 1994)
Abstract with my notes & references
Currently, considerable debate focuses on whether mind is located in the head or in the individual-in-social-action, and whether development is cognitive self-organisation or enculturation into established practice (for example, Fosnot, 1993; O'Loughlin, 1992; O'Loughlin, 1993).
In this article, I question assumptions that initiate this apparent forced choice between constructivist and sociocultural perspectives. I content that the two perspectives are complementary (also, Sfard, 1998). and keep the essential tension (Feyerabend).
Also, claims that either perspective captures the essence of people and communities should be rejected for pragmatic justifications that consider the contextual relevance and usefulness of a perspective. I argue that the sociocultural perspective informs theories of the conditions for the possibility of learning, whereas theories developed from the constructivist perspective focus on what students learn and the processes by which they do so.
Ps. Sfard’s (1998) two metaphors are: acquisition for constructivist and participation for sociocultural views.
References
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20.
Fosnot, C. T. (1993). Rethinking science education: A defense of Piagetian constructivism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1189-1201.
O'Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 791-820.
O'Loughlin, M. (1993). Some further questions for Piagetian constructivists: A reply to Fosnot. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1203-1207.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
Comments