From the Davis readings this week I can clearly see a break
from the umbrella of thought of metaphysical to what I now better understand as
physical. I have to admit that the only way I see intersubjectivity as physical is its complete opposition of the
metaphysical theories we have previously covered. In my mind I would like to think of the “physical”
as being concrete, proven, easily seen, etc.
but it seems as a whole intersubjectivity is the complete opposite of
these ideas. One of the main shifts I saw between metaphysical was the use of “language.”
In both structuralism and
poststructuralism language is no longer
a descriptor or tag of something but now “language” is explanation, interpretation,
and it is evolving. It seems that the truths or meanings are not something based
off of strictly logic or seen facts, but are now an interpretation of collective
knowledge and especially those things that have to be inferred and are not
clearly seen. Learners must be allowed to explore and the teacher’s role
becomes one of more guiding, liberating, empowering, prompting or enabling.
Davis said, “for structuralist, the individual is not a monad locked in a
biological prison, but an emergent and evolving form entangled with other
emergent and evolving forms.” (pg. 137) It seems in both structualist and
poststructuralist views that all sorts of external and even “non-formal
teaching” lead to a learning or knowing experience. On page 132 Davis said that
in these theories it is understood that we know more than we know, each and
every action contributes to knowing, and learning is an uncontrollable
phenomenon.
I feel that constructivist theory is born and manifested in
intersubjectivity thought. Would you agree? One thing I struggled with during
the reading is the difference in constructivism and constructionism. I am not
sure if I am correct so please let me know what you think, but I see constructivism
as more from the outside looking in as one would look at and better understand development.
And learning would be continually adaptive to outside experiences. Whereas
constructionism referred to as “social constructivism) seems more internal to
the individual learner. Constructionism seems to be of how the individual is
going to process knowledge in terms of socialization or enculturation. Please
let me know how you see the difference in constructivism and constructionism.
I also struggled with understanding the terms constructivism and constructionism in this week’s reading. I agree, though, with your description, especially that of constructionism having more to do with socialization and enculturation. At first reading, it’s easy to see and hear the terms as duplicates, and in doing so find contradictions in Davis’ explanation. However, upon closer investigation, it seems to me that the constructivist (the radical constructivist in particular) asserts that knowledge is not based in logical analysis of external experiences, but rather in associations and dissociations that each individual makes in her or his own mind. I would say that subjectivity (or inter-subjectivity) occupies a certain importance and demands a level of respect among radical constructivists.
ReplyDeleteI see constructionism, as a supplementary effort to re-construct or relate the knower’s subjective structures with objectivity in the world surrounding him or her. It seems to me that constructionists want to know how objectivity influences language, math, social views, and other structures in the subjectivity in the mind of the individual. I’m thinking about Davis’ explanation that, “...constructionist discourses are generally concerned with the simultaneous and interdependent creations of subjectivity and objectivity” (p121). I think that a major distinction between constructivism and constructionism is found in the terms socialization or enculturalization, as Alana mentioned. If I had to say explain it in one sentence, I’d say that constructionism is enculturated constructivism. Is this what Davis means on page 130 where he writes, “...these topics have come to be associated with the discourses of radical constructivism, activity theory, and constructionism (or social constructivism)”?
On this physical side of Davis’ genealogy, I’m not discerning any search for Knowledge (big K) or Truth (big T). Instead, I’m sensing a reception of subjective truths (little t). It’s been a while since I last read Brunner or Freire (the little that I have read), but I’m imagining that the two would sit down for a cup of coffee or go play on the swings during recess with Piaget and Vygotsky more readily than with Descartes and Locke (I’m officially backtracking from my previous association of Locke with Freire/Brunner). I imagine that behaviorists wouldn’t even be able to stay in the same room. Does anyone agree? Correction or “enlightenment” is welcomed.
The quote, "We know more than we know" is intriguing. I get the impression that for constructivists view the whole body as a cognitive system. Then we have already learned much that we are not aware of. Additionally our five senses have taken in and stored information about events we experienced and associated with one or more of the five sense.
DeleteAs I understand Vygotsky´s (constructionism) notion of having the social group framed the learning process compared to Piaget´s (constructivism) notion that the learning process expands as the knowers group is exposed to events in situations in the real world and language is use to convey and analyze knowledge. However, both theories use individual social interactions as primary tenets.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone see a parallel or sub-symmetry between Davis’ treatment of structuralism and poststructuralism and his treatment of constructivism and constructionism? I’m thinking that another mini-bifurcation could be constructivism V constructionism because I don’t see them as opposites but rather as co-dependents. On page 124, Davis writes, One might say that the focus is not so much the weave of a garment of knowledge, but its lining - the usually invisible structure that gives it its shape. Based on this and later explanations by Davis, I see poststructuralism and constructionism as efforts that grew out of structuralism and constructivism, respectively. Does it seem like Davis devotes more time to explaining the core ideas of structuralism and constructivism than he does to explaining constructivism and poststructuralism? I think that the goal of poststructuralism and constructionism is to make sense of intersubjectivity in the surrounding world. Does anyone agree or disagree?
ReplyDeleteReginald I would agree that both structuralism-poststructuralism and constructivism - constructionism are continuations or "co-dependents" on one another. It seemed to me in reading that poststructuralim was a continuation of structuralism. To me structuralism and poststructuralism were not on extreme ends of the spectrum of intersubjectivity the same way mysticism V religion were different but still within gnosis. I see structuralism and post-structuralism complementing each other and the difference between the two not as prominent as past theories. However my main difference in the two were seeing structuralism by Vygotsky (who happens to be the author of the book I'm reading) and then poststructuralism by Freire. It seems that Vygotsky has discussions of constructionism, and on pg 121 it talks about personal understanding by mimicking, or acting out observed roles. I think this is different than Freire on pg. 143 talking about poststructuralism where understanding is under enculturation or engaging in dialouge with others about the situation.
DeleteI like how Maru said that "both theories use individual social interactions as primary tenets." I think this is a nice summary of constructionism and constructivism. Where there are differences that can be discussed the bases leads back to the social interaction and making meaning out of your interactions.
I agree. Davis references constructionism as social constructivism. Constructionism is mostly concerned with socially constructed knowledge and how society structures activities of individuals. Radical constructivism is mostly concerned with individual interpretation of experiences.
DeleteIt has occurred to me that Davis’s discourses on intersubjectivity, interobjectivity, constructionism, constructivism, and eventually structuralism and poststructuralism, tend to be mostly conjecture and theory and there seems to be very little analytical sciences. In this weeks readings the evolution of structuralism is very straightforward and somewhat proven. However the notion of poststructuralism is very arbitrary and subjective. It is clearly open to more analytical study before applying tremendous social power in shaping knowledge. How do you feel analytical sciences could be use to improve our teaching system?
ReplyDeleteI think analytical study should proceed within the limitations of a social science as it may be more art than science. Some empirical data can help improve the teaching system but pressure for teaching to become a science may lead to an over-reliance on quantifying the teaching and learning process. With that caution, research driven teaching methods can inform teachers and provide alternative teaching strategies to improve student learning.
DeleteOne of the main things that stood out to me in the intersubjectivity branch is that of language. It seems to me that an evolution of language did not take place but instead an entirely new thought for "language" developed on its own. Maybe I do not have enough background but I can not trace how language went from labeling to now interpretation. It seems that this "new language" should possibly not be labeled "language" but possibly investigating, synthesizing, deriving meaning, or interpretation. Davis states on (pg. 124) that " language must be understood as a set of relations rather than in terms of discrete word units," I see this as a direct need/reason for discourses to emerge. From my understanding discourses are how to reason through what can be said or done. Like Davis stated, " discourse refers to the intertwining structures, that frame a social or cultural group's preferred habits or interpretation." (pg. 124) Each discourse has its own rules and typically comes with an opposition discourse, a discourse by definition does not have to be in opposition to another discourse but it at least has a relation to another discourse. In my mind everything we have covered thus far would be considered a discourse: mysticism/religion, rationalism/empiricism, structuralism/poststructuralism and even the bigger discourses of physical/metaphysical, subjectivity/objectivity. Would you agree with this explanation of discourses or do you see discourses in a different way?
ReplyDeleteYour interpretation made me realize that the concept of discourse is very important to the derivation of the subjects, which we are studying. To me discourses is the total communication between and individual and others individuals that compose a social network. This communication is exchange of knowledge both conscious and subconscious and conveys patterns of meaningful information. Although the individual has to receive this communication and internalize it within there own framework and perspective. The primary tool for this communication is language. The process of communications is a recursive flow of information and expanded information which solutions hopefully emerge. Before this can happen the individuals within the network have to be synchronize
DeleteI would agree with that assessment. I appreciate Davis’ reiteration of what can be viewed as everyday terminology. Also, on page 24, Davis reiterates that poststructuralists assert,”...that these structures must not be considered in decontextualized or dehistoricized terms.”
ReplyDeleteIt helps me to refer to Spanish here. The word ‘discussion’ in Spanish is ‘discurso’, and it is usually used in reference to an academic speech followed by questions or a town hall meeting. In that sense there needs to be a “back and forth” conversation between two or more parties. I still wonder, though, if a discourse is by rule comprised of opposing positions. I’m thinking about the prefix ‘di-’ which sometimes indicates ‘two’ and, in some words, ‘against’. I think that Davis makes it clear, however, that postculturalism elaborates and makes social sense of structuralism.
This past Saturday morning, I went to Panera Bread Co., and seated to my left were two men talking about math formulas (I think). As I overheard their conversation, I felt like I had just landed on another planet. I suppose they were talking about geometry because they used words like “axis”, “angle”, and “theorem”. I did take geometry once upon a time in high school, and I had nightmares about it, alongside my nightmares about physics. That said, I have the utmost respect for “math people” as I like to say; you all are geniuses!
ReplyDeleteI say all this because I don’t want to seem irreverent to all the mathematicians out there when I say that I was glad to read that John the Baptist’s (Giambattista) questioned Descartes use of geometry and proposed using other facets like art and language. I’ll admit that I don’t have a deep understanding of many areas beyond music and latin-based languages.
I do remember one idea from my marine biology class, though. It helps me to think of structuralism in terms of cohesion as opposed to adhesion. If I remember correctly, cohesion, in terms of biology, is the union of similar particles or tissues, whereas adhesion is the union of dissimilar particles or tissues. Likewise, I’m thinking of structuralism as uncovering knowledge through studying relationships between similar objects or events. Concerning language discovery, Davis says, “Meaningfulness and validity in such a system is not a matter of match with external referents, but of the system’s internal coherence.” (p117) I think that, without the emergence of poststructuralism, which seems to add an element of adherence to society, these structures (language, math, art, etc.) might implode