Talk:Social constructivism

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Sources

I notice this is identical to the Moodle page, but I am not sure which came first Mgoodyear (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

It is a little curious that virtually the whole article (by Em2Wiki) was removed in October 2008 without explanation Mgoodyear (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

142.239.254.19 was me Mgoodyear (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Account as passive

In reference to: "Piaget's stage theory (describing four successive stages of development) also became known as constructivism, because he believed children needed to construct an understanding of the world for themselves. This contrasts with behaviourism (learning theory) in which the development arises from specific forms of learning, the child being seen as a passive recipient of environmental influences that shape its behaviour. Piaget's theory saw children as possessing active agency rather than being passive receptacles."

This is a generic misunderstanding. Behavior analysis does not imply passivity. In contrast, behavior analysis is founded on the behavior-environment interaction as a key component; in other words, as we interact with the environment, we change it and it changes us. Thus, the distinction between passive/active agent is quite a contentious point.

If this statment remains, then references will be required and the stance of behavior analysis should be modified. Skinner, the founder of behavior analysis, should probably be referenced with regard to stance of the field.

Edit: I came to this page while reading "Learning RFT". On Page 12 it states "Stimulus and response (behavior) are codependent and should be considered togehter. They make up a single unity (Kantor, 1970). Passive is not an adequate description of this interaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.166.22.62 (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment, this active/passive dichotomy is a false as behaviorist principles require an active learner (a behavior is required for conditioning to occur). The word active, as used here and by constructivists, means more that students are self motivated to learn, and the key constructivist principle posits that students learn better if they discover knowledge on their own (i.e., not explicitly from other people). Not that last phrase seem rather contrary to the claims of Vygotsky, and social constructivism, which emphasize the effectiveness of social interaction via language and suggest we get concepts from interacting with others (again primarily via language). Vygotsky's ideas are anti-constructivist despite many today applying the constructivist label to him.

The assertion that Piaget's stages of development "became known as constructivism" requires support and is probably wrong. The development of cognitive abilities are at least partially do to maturation, which is not a construction nor due to any motivation on the part of the learner. Labeling Piaget and Vygotsky as constructivists does not make them so. It is okay to claim that social constructivist ideas derive from them, but there is not need to claim they were constructivists or social constructivists or that they somehow founded social constructivism.Robotczar (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Social Constructivist Principles?

It is curious that this article does not explicitly list principles of the social constructivist perspective. A scientific theory is explanatory and predictive and thus suggests principles that can be tested. So, exactly what is expected or explained by social constructivism should be clearly listed in this article. I suggest that the principle that knowledge can be co-constructed is not a useful principle because no learning theory suggests otherwise (even behaviorism as social interaction can be a reinforcer/punishment). I further suggest that the key (and probably only) principle of social constructivism is that learning via social interaction (i.e., co-constructed knowledge) is more effective or efficient than learning that does not involve social interaction, which would include discovering knowledge on one's own (ironically, the only constructivist principle). For the purposes of this article, it doesn't matter if the principles of social constuctivism are true of not, but such principles must be stated if the reader of the article is to understand what social constructivism is. Robotczar (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article seems to be very problematic as it does not refer to the central defining book of the whole concept (The social Construction of Reality" by Berger and Luckmann 1966/1968....I have no time to correct it, but I am shocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.149.69.85 (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with constructionism ?

As discussed here, but not in depth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_constructionism#Proposed_merge_with_Social_constructivism

There really are big overlaps between the articles. Berger&Luckmann used mainly constructiVISM; that mostly translate to constructionism following the logic of the currents wikis as the bigger/more abstract theme, with social constructivism being the consequences or a kind of applied constructionism in fields like education etc. Edit: doesn't it!?! Diceypoo (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two terms are often confused and assumed to be the same to such a degree that it is difficult to maintain that they still mean different things. As there appears to be a consensus against merging, the difference between the two concepts needs to be explained more clearly, and it should be mentioned that the word constructivism is often used in the meaning of constructionism. Agnerf (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Social constructivism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy

"One characteristic of social constructivism is that it rejects the role of superhuman necessity in either the invention/discovery of knowledge or its justification." -- Straw man. No one claims there is a role of superhuman necessity in invention or discovery. The phrase comes from Victor Hugo, a novelist.Philgoetz (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]