Constructionism and the space of reasons

Mathematics Education Research Journal - Tập 29 - Trang 419-435 - 2017
Kate Mackrell1, Dave Pratt1
1Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK

Tóm tắt

Constructionism, best known as the framework for action underpinning Seymour Papert’s work with Logo, has stressed the importance of engaging students in creating their own products. Noss and Hoyles have argued that such activity enables students to participate increasingly in a web of connections to further their activity. Ainley and Pratt have elaborated that learning is best facilitated when the student is engaged in a purposeful activity that leads to appreciation of the power of mathematical ideas. Constructionism gives prominence to how the learner’s logical reasoning and emotion-driven reasons for engagement are inseparable. We argue that the dependence of constructionism upon the orienting framework of constructivism fails to provide sufficient theoretical underpinning for these ideas. We therefore propose an alternative orienting framework, in which learning takes place through initiation into the space of reasons, such that a person’s thoughts, actions and feelings are increasingly open to critique and justification. We argue that knowing as responsiveness to reasons encompasses not only the powerful ideas of mathematics and disciplinary knowledge of modes of enquiry but also the extralogical, such as in feelings of the aesthetic, control, excitement, elegance and efficiency. We discuss the implication that mathematics educators deeply consider the learner’s reasons for purposeful activity and design settings in which these reasons can be made public and open to critique.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: what’s the difference? Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438. http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf, Accessed 19 April, 2015.

Ackermann, E. (2010). Constructivism(s): shared roots, crossed paths, multiple legacies. In Proceedings of Constructionism 2010. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.473.6201&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed December 20, 2015.

Ainley, J., Pratt, D., & Hansen, A. (2006). Connecting engagement and focus in pedagogic task design. British Educational Research Journal., 32(1), 23–38.

Bakhurst, D. (2011). The formation of reason. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Benton, L., Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., & Noss, R. (2016). Building mathematical knowledge with programming: insights from the ScratchMaths project. In A. Sipitakiat & N. Tutiyaphuengprasert (Eds.), Constructionism in action: conference proceedings constructionism 2016 (pp. 25–32). Bangkok: Suksapattana Foundation.

Brady, C., Weintrop, D., Anton, G., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Constructionist learning at the group level with programmable badges. In A. Sipitakiat & N. Tutiyaphuengprasert (Eds.), Constructionism in action: conference proceedings constructionism 2016 (pp. 60–67). Bangkok: Suksapattana Foundation.

Brandom, R. (1995). Knowledge and the social articulation of the space of reasons. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 15(4), 895–908.

Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons: an introduction to inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Belkapp Press.

Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2–33.

Cold [adjective 4]. In Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cold. Accessed Oct 21, 2015.

Derry, J. (2013). Vygotsky: philosophy and education. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

diSessa, A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103.

Dreyfus, H. (2013). The myth of the pervasiveness of the mental. In J. Schear (Ed.), Mind, reason and being-in-the-world: the McDowell-Dreyfus debate (pp. 15–40). New York: Routledge.

Ernest, P. (2010). Reflections on theories of learning. In B. Sriraman & L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education (pp. 39–47). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Fields, D., Quirke, L., Horton, T., Maughan, J., Velasquez, X., Amely, J., & Pantic, K. (2016). Working toward equity in a constructionist scratch camp: lessons learned in applying a studio design model. In A. Sipitakiat & N. Tutiyaphuengprasert (Eds.), Constructionism in action: conference proceedings constructionism 2016 (pp. 290–297). Bangkok: Suksapattana Foundation.

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. Norwood: Ablex.

Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Masicampo, E. & Baumeister, R. (2013). Conscious thought does not guide moment-to-moment actions—it serves social and cultural functions. Frontiers in Psychology, http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00478/full. Accessed September 22, 2015.

McDowell, J. (1995). Knowledge and the internal. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 15(4), 877–893.

McDowell, J. (1996). Mind and world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

McDowell, J. (2005). Sellars and the Space of Reasons. http://www.scribd.com/doc/137428240/John-McDowell-Sellars-and-the-Space-of-Reasons#scribd. Accessed September 20 2015.

McDowell, J. (2013). The myth of the mind as detached. In J. Schear (Ed.), Mind, reason and being-in-the-world: the McDowell-Dreyfus debate (pp. 41–59). New York: Routledge.

McLeod, S. (2015). Jean Piaget. http://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html. Accessed January 19, 2017.

Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: learning cultures and computers. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Papert, S. (1982). Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas. London: Harvester Press.

Piaget, J. (1954). Intelligence and affectivity: their relationship during child development. Palo Alto: Annual Review, Inc..

Pratt, D., & Noss, R. (2002). The micro-evolution of mathematical knowledge: the case of randomness. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 453–488.

Presno, C. (1997). Bruner’s three forms of representation revisited: action, pictures and words for effective computer instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 24(2), 112–118.

Reid, D. (2014). The coherence of enactivism and mathematics education research: a case study. Avant, 5(2), 137–172.

Rohlf, M. (2014), Immanuel Kant, In E. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/kant/. Accessed September 22, 2015.

Roth, W.-M. (2011). Passibility: at the limits of the constructivist metaphor. Dordrecht: Springer.

Sellars, W. (1963). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. In W. Sellars (Ed.), Science, perception and reality (pp. 127–196). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Taylor, C. (2013). Retrieving realism. In J. Schear (Ed.), Mind, reason and being-in-the-world: the McDowell-Dreyfus debate (pp. 61–90). New York: Routledge.

Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1991). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 161–191). Norwood: Ablex.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: why some like it radical. Journal for Research In Mathematics Education – Monograph, 4, 19–29.

Vygotsky (1930). The instrumental method in psychology. https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/instrumental.htm. Accessed September 15, 2015.

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4), 625–636.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Mathematics Education Research Journal

Tập 29

419-435

Thông tin tác giả