Constructivism - Science topic

As a rule, scientists are in the learning mode all their lives (however, there are also those who hold tightly to the knowledge gained in their youth). Learning and research are closely linked. Of course, the sense organs play an important role in any activity, including scientific. But how then to explain the phenomenon of Pontryagin (1908-1988), who lost his eyes at the age of 14 and became one of the most significant mathematicians of the 20th century? There was also Hawking, who didn’t have much at all ... I knew blind, deaf, legless and armless (the consequences of what is called “WWII” in the West, but not only) scientists. They were not much different from scientists (mostly only in everyday life), who had a "complete set" of the body. But I did not know a single person who was able to learn and did not have a head. However, sometimes professors are called headless quite complete children ... What about the practice of teaching deaf-blind-mute children (E. Keller, I. A. Sokolyansky, L. S. Vygotsky ...)? Does the author of the question confuse the processing of information and the channels for obtaining it? Not so long ago, I personally made sure that we see not what our eyes show us, it's a long story, the "visible picture" has changed a lot for me. But the world has remained almost the same! Neither I myself (however, this is not a criterion, fools never realize themselves as fools), nor those around me (maybe they don’t want to upset me?), did not notice changes in my ability of learning.

I believe the fundamentals of Research and Evaluation should be taught in senior secondary schools. These students already engage in Research without actually knowing. Mostly, I give students topics and concepts to find out more about; they browse or ask people who are more informed so as to have a clearer understanding: That is Research.

For Evaluation, these students are supposed to have knowledge of how they're rated and implications of low ratings. More importantly they should be taught to read their graded scripts, understand the teacher's comments and take corrections as feedback for an improved Learning outcome.

Dear Ms. Hunt!

You raised a very important issue to consider. May I argue that research is a "collective platform" for working with science while evaluation (measuring) is a toolset to advance science and education. I searched for resources to support my claim:

1) Valle, N., Brishke, J., Shenkman, E. et al. Design, Development and Evaluation of the Citizen Science Cancer Curriculum (CSCC): a Design and Development Case Study. TechTrends (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00737-6, Open access:

2) Blankenberger, B., Gehlhausen Anderson, S. & Lichtenberger, E. Improving Institutional Evaluation Methods: Comparing Three Evaluations Using PSM, Exact and Coarsened Exact Matching. Res High Educ 62, 1248–1275 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-021-09632-0, Open access:

3) Álex Escolà-Gascón, Josep Gallifa, How to measure soft skills in the educational context: psychometric properties of the SKILLS-in-ONE questionnaire, Studies in Educational Evaluation, Volume 74, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101155. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191491X22000323

4) Daraio, C., Vaccari, A. How should evaluation be? Is a good evaluation of research also just? Towards the implementation of good evaluation. Scientometrics (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04329-2, Open access:

Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely

I think that an existing theory of aesthetic construction is the theory of art education based on cognitive domains (DBAE) because it includes the component of aesthetics.

Using self-identification to measure indigenous identity faces distinct challenges globally as indigenous identity is considered fluid and multidimensional. While self-identification should remain the central criterion and countries should extend it to their other instruments, further analyses to understand ethnic disparities should consider indigenous identity's multidimensional.

Johann Pieterse

While social constructionism focuses on the objects produced by a group's social interactions, social constructivism focuses on an individual's learning as a result of his or her interactions in a group.

The major distinction between the two theories is the emphasis that each places on experiences and social interactions. The emphasis in constructivism is on personal experiences in creating knowledge, but in social constructivism the emphasis is on social interactions and culture.

I am not sure what kinds of comments you want, but I do disagree with your assertion that constructivism is similar to BOTH relativism and pragmatism. This claim makes it sound as if there should be some kind of indirect connection between relativism and pragmatism, but that is certainly not the case.

With regard to relativism, the key issue is whether you can maintain that individuals construct their own reality without somehow reaching the conclusion that everyone has their own unique reality, which is the heart of relativism.

With regard to pragmatism, the key issue is that pragmatists disengage from issues related to both ontology and epistemology. Instead of arguing about whether reality is objective or subjective, pragmatists are concerned with the consequences of acting one way or another.

Constructivism is a theory describing how learning regardless of whether learners are using their experiences to understand a lecture, it build critical thinking and PBL is a learning environment that embodies most of the principle that improve learning active, cooperative, getting feedback, tailored to student learning and to solve problems, both increase critical thinking in learning.

A good researcher can diagnose the practical aspects of data through statistical applications, but the problem is that some researchers are weak in statistical skills.

Completamente de acuerdo con el profesor Huí Cai

Dear Yu Tang

"How to Cultivate the habit of reading in early childhood with constructivism paradigm?"-- you ask.

As as she it, the habit of reading in early childhood can be framed in two constructivist models or paradigms: Jean Piaget's contructivist theory of cognitive dvelopment and Lev Vygotsky's constructivist social-cultural theory. Both psychologist emphasize the role of children's actions in any type of development, be it cognitive or linguistic. So, the best way to develop children's habit of reading is to offer them books with images related with some words such that they themselves read such books. From a constructist framework. children do not develop their habits to read from listening to readers; they must be readers themselves. The is what is called leaning by doing

I hope this helps you. Good luck for your work.

All the best, Orlando M, Lourenço

Agree with Muhammad Amjad what aspects of seperation anxiety also are you examining this will determine the research methodology employed.

As I think the constructionist research paradigm is suitable for the study of early childhood education.......................

You are most welcome Wei Li!

Very philosophical question. My philosophy shapes my practice and this has changed phenomenally over the years due to research and the varying context with in my teaching sphere. I have had to change my dispositions and attitudes towards my students, to become a bit more amenable and understanding especially within the Covid context. My methodology has evolved and now includes engagement, interactivity and more contemporary methods suited to andragogy. Great question Adrian Twissell

Paradigms provide a holistic view that guides our research. It depends upon the perception of the researcher about how he prefers to view the reality (ontology), the nature of the knowledge that is to be gained (epistemology) and the systematic methods to be used to acquire that knowledge (methodology).

A positivist thinks that the truth out there is only one and it can be observed and studied (typical quantitative research). A post-positivist still think that there is only one truth, but it can never be completely observed. Therefore, it allows flexible methodological options to allow more interaction between the researcher and subjects through approaches such as survey research, observation, interviews, etc. (a mixed-method approach). On the other hand, a constructivist thinks that social interactions within a community, between people, and the environment are vital to acquire the knowledge that they are looking for and hence utilizes pure qualitative research approaches.

Now, the big question about which one to choose. It depends upon the research question, the nature of knowledge that you are looking for, and the characteristics of the participants that you are going to deal with.

Both form and function are important in order to be a proficient user of the language. However, I would say that the first goal for learners is to communicate. For that purpose, teachers must put students in scenarios where they really need to communicate in the target language, this is, use the language with a clear purpose. Teachers must provide the necessary vocabulary and structures to achieve the communicative goal. So function comes first, then accuracy and form come afterwards.

Hi,

In constructivism, you will see the visible part/empirical findings of the iceberg - if we assume your phenomenon as an iceberg. In other words, you will be limited with the visible part of the iceberg. Well, what about the other/invisible part of the iceberg? At this point, critical realism will help you to see the other part, that is, the real level where the causal/generative mechanism is in. This requires a more comprehensive or deep contextual knowledge for your study.

هناك الكثير من الاستراتيجيات والنماذج والطرق التدريسية الحديثة التي يمكن ان يستخدمها المعلم مثل استراتيجيات حل المشكلات استراتيجيات التفكير او العصف الذهني وغيرها كلها تتمركز حول المتعلم وتجعل من المتعلم محور العملية التعليمية

Hi. I do want to give you a recommendation in order to help you to illuminate the basic theory of situated learning that also relate with contstructivism. Have you ever read about theory from John Dewey?

The aim of your research is to develop the framework and you will use the process of doing mixed-methods. If you will phenomenological approach, you have to consider research questions as well. At the same time, if you will use phenomenological study, Ontology, and epistemology should be conducted through the process of data collection and analysis. For example, a descriptive phenomenological study, you have to suspend prior knowledge, belief, and preconceived ideas during data collection and analysis. Is it an appropriate method for your study? Or it should be only content analysis or thematic analysis before developing questionnaires in Quantitative research (Mixed-method as QUAL+ QUANT). I suggest you read a book which was written by John W. Creswell about mixed-method.

Aaaw, thanks so much. You saved me . I was actually stressed looking for information on this

What we are discussing comes under the concept of Worldview. Worldviews are essentially contain an Ontology, an Epistemology and an Axiology.

We each have our own Worldview, which is learnt from childhood - and is socially constructed. A Worldview which contains the idea that it is not socially constructed seems quite strange to me, and is basically unimaginable within my own constructed Worldview.

Worldview is an idea developed from Kant (Weltanschuaang). If you are interested in this concept, have a look at Sire's "The Universe Next Door" and "The Elephant in the Room". Both books give about eight or nine questions to start to identify the important elements of a specific Worldview. Look as well at Naugle's Worldview: The History of a Concept.

In a Worldview context, the categories (for wont of a better word) are intertwined. As Martin Böhnert says, it is difficult and complex.

So, Sire says the first two questions are Epistemological (how do we now) and Ontological (what exists in our world) - but not necessarily in that order.

A religious Worldview is based on the existence of God/gods (or some sort of spiritual beings and realm). So Ontological is the first question. Descartes starts from this perspective and answers the Epistemological question How do we know? by saying 'God made me a knowing being'. So the Epistemology is intertwined with the Ontology.

Clearly, within most religious Worldviews the Axiology is handed out by the creator/divine beings, so the Axiology is intertwined within the Worldview with the Ontology and Epistemology.

Atheistic Worldviews (sometimes called Nihilistic) starts with the Epistemological question How do we know? Ontology is the second question. And without a God or Gods to point to, the Epistemological question is difficult to answer, and the discussion quickly reaches radical scepticism - i.e., the links between any real world and our conceptions of such a world cannot be made ... (So when people say I am wrong - it is largely because we do not share the same Worldview - but that is a very high level excuse and I rarely make it in any academic forum).

Reid says "I would argue that constructivism is a paradigm which affords particular ontological and epistemological beliefs. "

Exactly - Constructivism itself has a Worldview - but do not confuse 'paradigm' with 'Worldview'.

So Leyli, my basic answers to your questions " whether constructivism relates to ontological or epistemological theorizing? As an option, might it be combined type of theory?"

Yes - the combined theory is around, and found in, Worldviews, and there are three works I mentioned above that do exactly that.

"leaving epistemological issues aside and by focusing on ontology"

This probably cannot be done. Epistemologies and Ontologies are intertwined. They are reliant on each other for their coherency (or lack of coherency).

The only reason I say 'probably' is that I am unfamiliar with Wiener's work - but I might be able to mount an argument from Phenomenology (Heidegger rather than Husserl) to make such a statement, and I would move into its child Existentialism, probably the work of Merleau-Ponty or maybe Jaspers.

American Pragmatism would also be a starting point to ignore Epistemological issues, but to do so always ends in radical scepticism. I think the main reason people ignore Epistemology is because, without a God, there is no definitive answer - only debate and discussion.

The other reason to ignore Epistemology (except for philosophers) is that such questions tell us very little about the word we live in.

"I also bit confused whether empirical research relates to ontology, while normative research relates to epistemology."

I'm not surprised. I find the distinctions between them to be artificial. 'Empirical research' claims of objectivity and investigating any real world are false. Like 'Normative research', empirical research is also based on a point of view - based in a Worldview. Empirical science has its own Worldview.

Statistical research is conducted within a Worldview - a view that says they things we are counting are real things that are different from other real things. But it is our socially constructed Worldview, specifically the Ontology, that makes those distinctions. Other, equally valid, other groups of 'real things' can be easily made and counted.

I live and work across cultures, and between Worldviews. The things that exist in one Worldview/Ontology do not exist in the other Worldview/Ontology (such as Demons, Angels, Souls - these are the most obvious examples of things that may not exist within the Worldviews of the people reading this).

RE: Does constructivism relate to ontological or epistemological theorizing? Might it be combined?

Constructivism is a position on the ontological status of objects (broadly construed); it claims that certain objects don’t exist indepenently of minds but are invented rather than discovered. A related possible epistemological view might be that we don’t have directly access to reality but only to constructions, so our knowledge of constructions in some sense.

RE: Does empirical research relate to ontology, while normative research relates to epistemology?

No. Empirical research can relate to both. In fact empiricism is the view that the foundation of our knowledge is sensory experience, but it can either regard such experience as evidence for independently existing objects or not, either of which would be to combine empiricism with an ontological view. Early Logical Positivism (a.k.a. Logical Empiricism) tended to regard an ontology of independently existing objects as undesirable metaphysics in that they identified cognitively meaningful statements about the world with their conditions of verification (e.g. observations).

Normative research can involve ontology as well as epistemology. Moral realists might claim that values aren’t entirely mind-dependent, which is an ontological position. How we can know what the moral truths is a key epistemology problem.

thank you so much for your comments

Depends on the pragmatic stance. Mine is trying to find out whether the work and results could be of any use to somebody, not mandatory me. I am looking for a message and an audience for it. If I can't find it, I, most probably, reject the paper or ask for a major revision. After all, publishing is, or at least should be, a communication process.

You need to know that constructivism is divided into cognitive constructivism and social constructivism. The main proponent of Cognitive constructivism is Jean Piaget while the main proponent of social constructivism is Lev Vygotsky.

So glad that what I wrote seems to have made sense to you. I see we are somewhat at similar lines. I do not yet think we have seen any final outcome of the use of digital ICTs. The next big, and somewhat quite disruptive thing I expect is development in the direction of learning analytics and adaptive learning. This will begin to respect that learners need different time and other different resources and relations to learn. Instead of time being the constant and learning variable, learning can be constant and time variable. But this destroys school scheduling and organisation and calls for reconstruction of social learning structures in organised education.

I leave a couple of attachments here to papers on RG, by Floridi, that I think you will like, related to my previous post - and a conference presentation of mine.

You write about constructivism - but I wonder if you are in your thinking closer to constructionism. Papert was a friend of Piaget (constructivist) but became in the end a constructionist. A lot of difference here. Floridi sees it as the difference between knowledge of the user and knowledge of the maker, and blames the knowledge of the user, knowledge as a spectator sport, on Plato. Floridi sees it as a historic mistake - it is the maker of artefacts (which Plato despised) who has deeper knowledge - he or she knows how it works, can take the artefact apart, explain and put it together again. Think of the difference between a car user and a car mechanic. Artefacts can also be non-physical of course. See attached paper ”What the makers knowledge could be”, and ”In defence of constructionism”. I will also send you on RG mail a short text behind a paywall.

However, if you are doing a dissertation under surveillance, deviations from the almost all-dominant constructivism dogma may not be problem-free. Just a heads-up...

Hi Theo,

I am completing my dissertation -- waiting to defend. I did a quantitative study and used constructivism as it relates to the grading of reflective journal writing and student honesty; I learned that constructivism is a scaffolding process where students add to or build on their knowledge; the professor/instructor stands back and allows students to learn. There is no shortage of articles related to constructivism. All the best. Jo Anne

The poles of positivism and constructivism do not exhaust the possibilities as I argue in this

In recent years, constructivism seems to be more influential, especially regarding issues related to cultural identity. Keeping this in mind and taking consideration that contemporary threats, such as interstate conflicts and terrorism have a strong association with identities, constructivism is able to give adequate answers. However, we should try to combine different disciplines in order to deliberate on complicated issues that exist in modern times. Those different and competing disciplines focus on different levels of analysis and as a result, give different answers as causes of contemporary issues. Hence, if someone wishes to be prudent, he has to research on different levels of analysis and on a flourish of actors. So, he has to understand multiple theories.

It seems highly probable that Peter Berger’s Social Construction of Reality is the basis for his argument.

You can find lots of such lists. This project of listing "paradigms" gained its popularity through the work of Egon Guba and Yvonne Lincoln. Their first list, in their book Naturalistic Inquiry, included Positivism, Post-Positivism, and Constructivism. Later, in chapters for the various editions of the Denzin and Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research, they expanded their list to include Critical Theory and Participatory Research -- but they later dropped Participatory Research from their list, showing that there is room for flexibility in creating a list. The introduction of Pragmatism to such lists began with its popularity in the field of mixed methods research, where there is also an interest in Critical Realism. So, a lot of the divergences arise from different traditions and various fields.

It is also worth noting that Guba & Lincoln were responsible for introducing the philosophy of knowledge framework (ontology, epistemology, and methodology) as the way to define their version of paradigms. But this way of distinguishing paradigms has nothing to do with the work of Thomas Kuhn -- it was entirely invented by Guba and Lincoln.

I agree with Greg, try Bandura's Social Learning Theory. Bandura found that people learn from each other by observation, imitation, and modeling.

Hi Nanteni,

There may be many different approaches to bring-out with the students' existing concepts on fractions. For example, the teacher may ask about students' experience of having pizza at home. It is usually delivered into pieces. Teachers may ask the students about how many pieces were there when they ate some. Other relevant questions may be about how many pieces one student had, how many other persons were there and so on. The teacher then may summarize with the concept of fraction and, finally, introduce the fraction characteristics and operational laws to the students and something new to learn.

All the best to your thesis.

May be some response here

and some here

Thanks Zuhair. Your contribution seems to fit in the empiric paradigm, where measuring e.g. using indicators is paramount?

Hi!

Good question! I agree with you, many authors do seemingly not care about any difference. Perhaps they don't even notice the different spelling of the terms. Should not surprise me. And Berger and Luckmann's known book about constructivism has "construction" in its title. (The social construction of reality). Confusing as well.

And yes, then we also have constructivism and constructionism on their own as basically epistemological or learning theories about the individual's possibility of knowledge; but when we place "social" before any of them we have an emphasis on sociological theories, how we together can make social sense of the world around us (if any).

Wikipedia makes this difference (right now today) "While social constructionism focuses on the artifacts that are created through the social interactions of a group, social constructivism focuses on an individual's learning that takes place because of his or her interactions in a group."

But there are different thinkers behind the terms. Constructionism is theorized and advocated by Piaget and Papert. It is as I understand it to make models, constructions together and thereby construct knowledge artifacts (which can be material as well, but not necessarily). What you know, you should be able to take apart, tinker with, explain and put together again in the same way or another way. Luciano Floridi has a very interesting paper where he seems to almost despise constructivism as "the user's knowledge" while "constructionism" is "the maker's knowledge". In the history of philosophy he blames this unfortunate wrong emphasis on Plato, who seemed to despise people who constructed things, the makers, and prioritized those who reflected over things, the users. He seems to mean that constructivism is this "user's knowledge" that does not take human "poiesis", creative construction ability, into account but instead looks at the world more unengaged and reflective from a distance. Furthermore, this disengaged kind of knowledge also claims priority.

Constructivists surely would not agree, but I find Floridi very interesting.

Check up his other paper attached here about the difference between the knowledge of a) Alice that causes a change to a system in the world, B) Bob who watches Alice when doing this change, and c) Carol, who is being told that a change to the system in the world has occured.

Domenico,

There is no question about this. Human life is certainly possible in weightless conditions. Many hundreds of humans have lived and worked in these conditions over the last 50 years.

Gravity would still be an identifiable phenomenon - indeed, in a microgravity environment experiments such as the Cavendish experiment would be even easier to perform!

In general, epistemological issues are not closely connected to the application of specific methods for collecting and analyzing data, and this its one of the reasons that the emphasis on epistemological issues has decreased since its highpoint in the 1990s.

Since it sounds like you already have a research question, then the real issue is whether qualitative interviewing will help you answer that question, and if so, what kind of qualitative interviewing should you choose?

The book I recommend on qualitative interviewing in general is:

Runbin & Rubin, Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data, from Sage.

You don't need any philosophical assumptions to choose a research topic and the questions to ask about that topic.

As far as "worldview" goes, this term is often a synonym for paradigm, where the common citations would be to the work of Egon Guba and Yvonne Lincoln. Guba and Lincoln primarily contrasted constructivism (which is similar to interpretivism) with post-positivism.

This approach was popular in the U.S. back in the 1990s, but it has since fallen out of favor here because it has little to do with how one actually collects and analyzes data. For instance, there is no philosophical linkage one way or the other to collecting semi-structured interviews. That is simply a qualitative method that is more appropriate for some research purposes and less appropriate for others.

Hi Haba!

I see connectivism as a kind of constructivism - as also social constructivism is an emphasis under the broader label of constructivism. And do not forget constructionism, which is also highly interesting in relation to ICTs and learning, and something else.

However, I think all kinds of learning theories and connected pedagogies and didactics are in a way rather neutral to the use of both classrooms and ICTs and their possible combinations. Owning Ipads does not implicate constructivism, but Ipads can help design a course in a constructivism manner. You can do very oldfashioned or even evil or stupid teaching / learning designs with ICTs or without. ICTs instead broadens our possibilities to design teaching and affect student learning under varying circumstances of all kinds. No more magic than that (but highly important anyway).

If you only have your own oral voice (no books, paper, blackboard, Ipads, LMSs or other ICTs) and 50 students to teach under the shadow of a tree - you cannot do much adaption or variation to student needs, and the teaching /learning process is probably not very effective (it is hard to even give homework).

See this thought experiment:

and this interpretation of blended learning, focusing on time and process instead of technology or place:

which simplifies thinking of blended leanring versus learning theories.

Hello Kamal Pokhrel,

Generally speaking, constructivism  refers to an epistemological stance explaining  that  humans generate knowledge and meaning based on the  interactions between their experiences and their ideas. Under such perspectivization,  while the world is independent of human minds,  knowledge of the world results from human and social construction. This theory is  attributed to Jean Piaget, who asserted that knowledge is internalized through articulated mechanisms involving two different but complementary processes ; namely , accommodation and assimilation. In general, humans construct new knowledge from their experiences.When individuals assimilate, they incorporate an already existing framework to internalize it, whereas  accommodation is the process of reframing and restructuring one's mental representations of the external world to fit new experiences.

 On the other hand, relational constructivism can be regarded as a relational consequence of the radical constructivism. Unlike social constructivism, it enlists certain epistemological lines of argument  for explaining how human experiences go over and beyond the limited conditions of human perception - that is , self- referentially operating cognitive mechanisms. Thus, it can be concluded that humans are incapable of making  objective conclusions about the realities of the  world , and as a result,  human constructions of reality is  not only subjective, but it also has a relational nature. In other words, , relational constructivism tends to focus on the relational conditions dominating  human perceptional processes.  According to Kraus (1969), relational constructivism  basically originates from an epistemological point of view which focuses on both social and material  relations whereby cognitive construction processes are accomplished  under certain relational conditions.

Best regards,

R. Biria

Naturalism is one of those terms that has many senses. However, if one thinks of naturalism broadly as the attempt to explain the world in the manner of the natural sciences, i.e. without invoking anything supernatural, spiritual, or intentional, then one can distinguish various naturalist positions in terms of their ontological commitments. So construed, positivism (i.e. logical positivism or logical empiricism) can be regarded as a species of naturalism having the fewest ontological commitments (i.e. just the observations).

The term operational definition is almost entirely associated with quantitative research, where it describes how one measures ("operationalizes") something. The closest equivalent I can think of in qualitative research is to define eligibility criteria for determining who you will interview.

In semi-structured interviewing, the most important issue is often what a particular idea means to your participants, rather than what it means to you. When it is necessary to specify a definition for something you want them to discuss, then you simply do so.

Russell, I apologise for the lateness of my response - for some reason, I did not get any notification about your question. I am afraid Grounded Theory has a history of application in the field of education and technology.

Dear researcher,

The six steps prescribed by Braun and Clarke (2006) to carry out a thematic analysis are guidelines and should not be used as prescriptive, linear, and inflexible rules when analysing data. They should rather be used in relation to the research question and the available data. The six steps are as follows:

1. Familiarising yourself with your data

This step requires the researcher to be fully immersed and actively engaged in the data by firstly transcribing the interactions and then reading (and re-reading) the transcripts and/or listening to the recordings. Initial ideas should be noted down. It is important that the researcher has a comprehensive understanding of the content of the interaction and has familiarised him-/herself with all aspects of the data. This step provides the foundation for the subsequent analysis.

2. Generating initial codes

Once familiar with the data, the researcher must then start identifying preliminary codes, which are the features of the data that appear interesting and meaningful. These codes are more numerous and specific than themes, but provide an indication of the context of the conversation.

3.Searching for themes

The third step in the process is the start of the interpretive analysis of the collated codes. Relevant data extracts are sorted (combined or split) according to overarching themes. The researcher’s thought process should allude to the relationship between codes, subthemes, and themes.

4. Reviewing themes

A deeper review of identified themes follows where the researcher needs to question whether to combine, refine, separate, or discard initial themes. Data within themes should cohere together meaningfully, while there should be clear and identifiable distinctions between themes. This is usually done over two phases, where the themes need to be checked in relation to the coded extracts (phase 1), and then for the overall data set (phase 2). A thematic ‘map’ can be generated from this step.

5. Defining and naming themes

This step involves ‘refining and defining’ the themes and potential subthemes within the data. Ongoing analysis is required to further enhance the identified themes. The researcher needs to provide theme names and clear working definitions that capture the essence of each theme in a concise and punchy manner. At this point, a unified story of the data needs to emerge from the themes.

6. Producing the report

Finally, the researcher needs to transform his/her analysis into an interpretable piece of writing by using vivid and compelling extract examples that relate to the themes, research question, and literature. The report must relay the results of the analysis in a way that convinces the reader of the merit and validity of the analysis. It must go beyond a mere description of the themes and portray an analysis supported with empirical evidence that addresses the research question.

Her are some articles I hope they will help you:

Good luck

That is a framework. See the link below for the difference between a model and a framework. 

Esteemed colleagues,

thank you very much for these answers, which have proven very helpfull allready. The references are of very good use, and it is also very interesting to see the different diciplinary perspective taken. Personally, I find it interesting that more open-minded writings/approaches to field studies as a valid research design seem to come from discipline other than the pedagogical-psychological sphere, which relates to different paradigms, I guess.

However, as mentioned in the answer by Samy Azer, the most crucial point for a valid field-study research desing still is how to compare your construct of interest in goups under the same condition(s). That, in my experience, is also the hardest part to realize, since in a naturalistic environment conditions are nealy never exactly the same, which makes the design always fragile....

Would love to read your comments on that!

If I understand you correctly, I think you are touching on something that I have always found confusing: Can you use the results from a GT study as the basis for a further GT study? With a strict interpretation of GT, you should have a minimum of preconceptions, which would mean avoiding formalized theory of any kind.

But if we can't use the theories from previous GT work to guide further GT work, that would definitely limit the extent to which we can accumulate knowledge via GT.

Continuing.....

Let us assume that game theory is a branch of mathematics and let us further assume that not all mathematics relies upon or even involves numbers.

A type of game that does not necessarily involve numbers is the NIM game where players employ strategic thinking to play.  The importance of strategic thinking in maths and game theory led me to mention Wittgenstein earlier. Of course Dr. Wittgenstein some might claim, thought of all language as game. That may be where psychology enters consideration. So we turn away towards Educational psychologists such as Piaget and/or Vygotsky. 

If we recall the history of curriculum development we can recall that Piaget's colleague Inhelder participated in the development of "New Math," that certainly featured much about language and game theory in its applications.

Pragmatism became in the last three decades a cunning tag for whatever is supposed to be good to think in philosophy.  It is a tag given to a cloud, which is not recognised only because the English-speking world seem to have ignored and peacifully like to ignore other less palatable forms of such a universal recommended tag/container in history, and even in case this comfortable simplification of the array of forms of pragmatism were given a patch, the consequences of the remaining forms are either trivial or absurd, as I argued in various papers and books - with no refutation up to now. Thus the outcome ends up with just rhetoric advertising. I agree that QRD calls for an explicit philosophical frame, which however can't be a cloud of views, much the less advertising. So my answer to the question "Can pragmatism ...?"  is: no.

This question was rather directed to Dr. Jakline Elliot for her views. She is part of the project. 

Sorry!!

Dear Pallavi Pandey,

Generally speaking, researchers may use either a deductive cycle or an inductive cycle for doing research. In the former, the researcher formulates a hypothesis and tries to see whether it is true or false. This type of research is confirmatory. In the Latter, however, the researcher aims to discover a certain generalization concerning a topic of interest. This makes the approach exploratory. In point of fact, the researcher starts with data collection, data analysis and ends with the generation of a hypothesis. More recently, hybridizing the two cycles has become a norm in doing research admixing the features of inductive and deductive cycles in one research. For more details, I refer you to a book titled "Research in Education" written by Best and Kahn (2006), which provides a wealth of appropriate information about the methods of research and data analysis.

Best regards,

R. Biria

Conventional case method is quite different to GT. What is the advantage you are looking in using GT for teaching cases?

Inductive or Deductive: Two Different Approaches

There are two “broad methods of reasoning: the inductive and deductive: Approaches. Induction is defining as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation is best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively.  The deductive researcher “works from the ‘top down’, from a theory to hypotheses to data to add to or contradict the theory”: In contrast, they define the inductive researcher as someone who works from the “bottom-up, using the participants’ views to build broader themes and  generate a theory interconnecting the themes”.  In research, the two main types of analysis typically used are quantitative (deductive) and qualitative (inductive).  Though there seems to be some disagreement among researchers as to the best method to use when conducting research and gathering data, these two methods are not mutually exclusive and often address the same question using different methods

Inductive Approaches

In an inductive approach collect data, analyze patterns in the data, and then theorize from the data to research, a researcher begins by collecting data that is relevant to his or her topic of interest. Once a substantial amount of data has been collected, the researcher will then take a breather from data collection, stepping back to get a bird’s eye view of her data. At this stage, the researcher looks for patterns in the data, working to develop a theory that could explain those patterns. Thus, when researchers take an inductive approach, they start with a set of observations and then they move from those particular experiences to a more general set of propositions about those experiences. In other words, they move from data to theory, or from the specific to the general.

Deductive Approaches

Researchers taking a deductive approach develop hypotheses based on some theory or theories, collect data that can be used to test the hypotheses, and assess whether the data collected support the hypotheses. take the steps described earlier for inductive research and reverse their order. They start with a social theory that they find compelling and then test its implications with data. That is, they move from a more general level to a more specific one. A deductive approach to research is the one that people typically associate with scientific investigation. The researcher studies what others have done, reads existing theories of whatever phenomenon he or she is studying, and then tests hypotheses that emerge from those theories. While not all researchers follow a deductive approach, many do.

Complementary Approaches

While inductive and deductive approaches to research seem quite different, they can actually be rather complementary. In some cases, researchers will plan for their research to include multiple components, one inductive and the other deductive. In other cases, a researcher might begin a study with the plan to only conduct either inductive or deductive research, but then he or she discovers along the way that the other approach is needed to help illuminate findings. Here is an example of each such case.

Researchers may not always set out to employ both approaches in their work but sometimes find that their use of one approach leads them to the other.

My first thought is that if you want to do narrative analysis, then that process should start with the data collection itself. Specifically, you would want to do as much as possible to elicit high quality stories. Of course, it can be the case that your data produce an abidance of narrative material, even if that was not your original intent.

A second thing to consider is there are a number of different approaches to narrative analysis, whereas TA tends to be highly general in its application. So, you need to be clear about which version of narrative analysis you are using.

Finally, I don't thing that the two approaches are entirely incompatible, In particular, you could do a TA to cover the board aspects of the full data set, and then pick a particularly interesting part of those results to investigate in more depth with narrative analysis.

Dear Selim

Many thanks for your information - this will be very useful, especially the gap you mention on spiritual ecology and Daoism.

regards

David

Hi Darren!

I wonder whether you are acquainted with William Perry's (1970) book, Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. I think that you can profit a lot for your purposes from reading it . Generally speaking, the book presents a longitudinal study in a sample of college students (Harvard University). Perry was able to formulate 9, say, epistemological positions, which consist mainly of 4 positions (stages, levels): Dualism, Multiplicity, Relativism and Commitment. The book also presents a semi-clinical interview to assess those positions.  

What follows is a highly oversimplified outline. I urge you to read Perry's original book and article or any of the other literature referenced at the end of my answer.

William Perry claimed (and his claims have been substantiated by subsequent research) that college students (but others, too) "journey" through 9 "positions" with respect to intellectual and moral development. These stages can be characterized in terms of the student's attitude towards knowledge. The 9 positions, grouped into 4 categories, are:

1) Dualism/Received Knowledge: There are right/wrong answers, engraved on golden tablets in the sky, known to authorities. 

a) Basic Duality: All problems are solvable; therefore, the student's task is to learn the right solutions

b) Full Dualism: Some authorities (literature, philosophy) disagree; others (science, math) agree.Therefore, there are right solutions, but some teachers' views of the tablets are obscured. Therefore, student's task is to learn the right solutions and ignore the others.

2) Multiplicity/Subjective Knowledge: There are conflicting answers;

therefore, students must trust their "inner voices", not external authority.

a) Early Multiplicity: There are 2 kinds of problems: those whose solutions we know and those whose solutions we don't know yet  (thus, a kind of dualism).

Student's task is to learn how to find the right solutions.

b) Late Multiplicity: Most problems are of the second kind; therefore, everyone has a right to their own opinion, or some problems are unsolvable; therefore, it doesn't matter which (if any) solution you choose. Student's task is to shoot the bull.

(Most freshman were found to be at this position, which is a kind of relativism). At this point, some students become alienated, and either retreat to an earlier ("safer") position ("I think I'll study math, not literature, because there are clear answers and not as much uncertainty") or else escape (drop out) ("I can't stand college; all they want is right answers" or else "I can't stand college; no one gives you the right answers".)  Perhaps we evolve into Multiplists after we learn things tacitly and have internal or implicit "feelings" or intuitions about things, but not conscious or explicit beliefs that can be explained or justified.

3) Relativism/Procedural Knowledge: There are disciplinary reasoning methods:

Connected knowledge: empathetic (why do you believe X?; what does this poem say to me?) vs. separated knowledge: "objective analysis" (what techniques can I use to analyze this poem?)

a) Contextual Relativism: All proposed solutions are supported by reasons; i.e., must be viewed in context and relative to support. Some solutions are better than others, depending on context. Student's task is to learn to evaluate solutions. 

Perhaps we then evolve into Contextual Relativists when we can express our intuitions in language and seek justifications for them and relationships among them.

4) Commitment

a) Pre-Commitment: Student sees the necessity of making choices committing to a solution .

b) Commitment/Constructed Knowledge: Integration of knowledge learned from others with personal experience and reflection.

c) Commitment: Student makes a commitment. Challenges to commitment:

Student experiences implications of commitment. Student explores issues of responsibility.

d) Post-Commitment: Student realizes commitment is an ongoing, unfolding, evolving activity. The journey is sometimes repeated; and one can be at different stages at the same time with respect to different subjects.

References:

Perry, William G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Perry, William G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The Making of meaning. In Arthur W. The Modern American College (pp 76-116).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Belenky, M. F.,  Clinchy, B.; Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books

You can find much material on William Perry's work searching in the Internet. I attach to my answer to your question a file I found in the Internet.

I hope that I have got your answer and that this helps.

Best regards and good luck for your research

Dear Dennis

Let me start by saying that you raise an interesting and highly debated question: You ask the following: Are Vygotsky and Piaget really constructivist?  You keep on saying that you have read some views claiming that Vygotskian learning theory is a constructivist, similar to Piaget's learning theory. You add that you have some reservations on this because Piaget's theory about learning is based on genetic epistemology but for Vygotsky's theory is based on mediation or specifically the ZPD.

As you certainly know, constructivism has a lot of meanings and it is often confounded with social constructionism. It is noted, however, that contrary to the postmodern constructionist claim that all knowledge is socially constructed, constructivists accounts assume that individuals all construct essentially the same understanding of knowledge and value as a result of their interactions with the physical and social worlds. In this sense, Piaget is to constructivism such as Vygotsky is to constructionism.

 Constructivist approaches to development and education emphasize the importance of one’s own actions on one’s development and education. In this sense, both Piaget and Vygotsky may be considered constructivist authors for they both put a great emphasis on the importance of action on the genesis of the diverse forms of intelligence (Piaget), and on all functions of consciousness (Vygotsky). Note that according to Piaget [1964, p. 176, Development and learning. In R. Ripple, & U. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press] “To know an object is to act on it. To know is to modify, to transform the object, and to understand the process of this transformation”. In the same vein, for Vygotsky (1962, p. 153. Thought and language, Cambridge. MA: The MIT Press). “In the beginning was the deed. The word was not the beginning--action was there first; it is the end of development, crowning the deed.”  

As I see it, although there is a crucial, and generally unnoticed difference between P & V, they both share the following (1) a genetic (i.e., developmental) perspective; (2) a dialectical approach; (3) a non-reductionist view; (4) a non-dualistic thesis; (5) a primacy of processes over external contents or outcomes; and (6) a focus on qualitative changes over quantitative ones (see, for this respect, an article I published, in 2012, in New Ideas in Psychology, and titled: Piaget and Vygotsky: Many resemblances and a crucial difference, which I attach to my answer to your question.

I partly agree with you when you say that Piaget’s learning theory heavily relies on his genetic or developmental epistemology. I say partly, because Piaget’s learning theory also greatly relies on his theory of the individual’s psychological cognitive and moral development. In contrast to this, and as you noted, Vygotsky’s theory of learning is largely based on his socio-cultural and even historical theory, namely on his famous notion of zone of proximal development (ZPD), that is, “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86, Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

All that said, I think that, even though Vygotskian learning theory may be considered a constructivist theory, his theory is not as constructivist as Piaget's learning theory is. Note, among others, the following aspects: (1) Vygotsky’s mediational learning theory (i.e., “We learn and become ourselves through others”) has a constructionist flavor that does not exist in Piaget’s theory; (2) Psychogenesis is a key concept more in Piaget’s theory than in Vygotsky’s; (3) The opposite is true regarding the key concept of socio-genesis: (4) Piaget’ learning theory is mainly based on his epistemological assumptions and psychological developmental findings, whereas Vygotsky’s leaning theory is guided by his social and even Marxist views. (5) To a great extent, transformation is to Piaget as transmission is to Vygotsky: (5) Piaget was mainly interested, as it were, in one’s relatively spontaneous and natural development and learning, whereas Vygotsky was mainly concerned with one’s cultural development and learning. I could make this list a longer list.

Here, I do not say more because my article mentioned above may give you some hints on the difference and similarities between these two geniuses of developmental psychology. Needless to say, not all who are familiar with both Piaget’s and Vygotsky’ oeuvre will share what I say in my article mentioned above.

I hope I have got your question and that this helps.

Best regards.

Domenico:

The important thing, I think, is to keep an open mind, and to be enactively flexible when a new (from a personal perspective) experience challenges what one imagines one "knows."

Luis:

Thanks for the links. On with the search!

Postscript:

Connect the audio output device, turn up the volume, and click here:

Plan B, in case the latter link becomes inactive:

If you have access via library or other source to 'Global Institutions and development' edited by Morten Bøås and Desmond McNeill (2004), a useful chapter to read is #14 (The power of ideas by James J Hentz). When policy ideas gain international currency (i.e. global legitimacy), many national governments start considering how they can incorporate these into the domestic political arena.

One example I've looked at was the idea of 'freedom of information' (related also to data protection issues) that came to the fore in OECD member nations during the early 1980's. As a result, many of these nations introduced legislation aimed at giving citizens better access to government information and the right to correct errors in own personal data recorded therein. This, of course, does not mean that access to information actually was free nor improved in next one or two decades but at least provided grounds for citizens to raise complaints, queries and agitation...!

There are quite a few 'good practice' reports/manuals in the OECD resource library that document ideas tried out in developing countries (as well as advanced economies) that have achieved international recognition and been spread as 'good' if not 'best 'practice. The bureaucrats in many countries reference this when introducing policy policy proposals to their government/ ministry.

I recently wrote a paper published in The Clearing House: A Journal of Methods that explored some problems with contructivism as pedagogical practice focusing on "activity".  However, within, I address a few major problems of social constructivism for learning:

  1) Because schema are formed by building knowledge on prior knowledge, if we seek to promote a "social constructivist" environment we almost necessarily must abandon the idea that actual truth exists.  This is a major problem because to endorse pure relativism is utterly in vain.  Hard relativism is internally contradictory and, thus, necessarily false.  

However, if we endorse a "social constructivist" classroom where the group determines what is true, we adhere to this fallacious view.  I would argue that this is among the most pressing problems of such an approach.

Here is a link to the article I mentioned if you'd like to read the whole thing (you'll probably need to log in through your campus library to get access)

LINK 1: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304662570_Student-centered_Education_and_Constructivism_Challenges_Concerns_and_Clarity_for_Teachers

LINK 2: http://eric.ed.gov/?q=constructivism+learning+theory&ff1=subTeaching+Methods&id=EJ1106715

New Ideas in Psychology published recently a special issue on  William James. I think that you can benefit from reading such issue.

I think that William James was, so to speak, a constructivist avant la letre, just because, to some extent, he denied the existence  of an absolute external reality. Or, in other words, what would be the meaning of an absolute external reality if it could not be acted upon. As Piaget put it, objects exit outside. However, this would be a poor concept of objects.. Objects acquire meaning while we can act upon them, such as is the case when we touch them (motor action) or when we classify, count, rank order them(a mental action).

Note that we should be  aware that, constructivism a la Piaget or a la James has nothing to do with social constructionism a la K. Gergen, just to give an example. Contrary to postmodern constructionism claim that all knowledge and value is socially constructed, constructivist accounts assume that individuals all construct essentially the same understanding of knowledge and value as a result of their interactions with the physical and social worlds. A I see him, William James is a constructivist, not a constructionist-     

Welcome.

If you're looking for a way to synthesise a realist concept like the national interest and constructivist variables like identities/culture, see my paper 'systemic pressures and domestic ideas (plug done!). Also barkin realist-constructivism. 

Piaget concerned with the cognitive structure, to start from known to unknown and to find relevant connections between knowledge inside classrooms and its applications outside the school. Vygotsky has two main domain of the concept, the first is the cognitive constructivism which very closed to Piaget and the second is the social constructivism which investigate the importance of building concepts and acquiring skills in a social context that gives the learner proper help in the right time which so-called scaffolding process and it suppose that the learner can obtain knowledge and skills from the teacher and class-mate better than depending only on himself without hints. Vygotsky and others referred to one reaction when student receive proper hint in the right time which called Aha reaction and then he/she can build on that hint to reach the targeted goals step by step (Scaffolding).

Paul,

very reasonable skepticism, and exactly that we are going to address. To cut long story short - it won't be forecasting, but predicting. And it will always operate with probability. We are convinced that our framework will make such redefined forecasting viable. Of course if one will accept obvious limitations that we face in social science. 

Best,

Karol

Hi Ramy:

Here's a link to simplified answer to your question:

Best regards,

Debra

In the two (probably) most quoted/famous references about repertory grid you may find many examples referring to concrete concepts: (i) Jankowitcz's The Easy Guide to Repertory Grids; (ii) Fransella's A Manual for Repertory Grid Tecnique. There many studies about that, such as consumer's choices: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/13522750010333889

You may also consider another PCP technique: laddering or pyramiding. It may help you in understand the personal meaning/formation of concrete concepts (see "Personal Construct Methodology")

Hello, Richard and Béatrice. To answer the question baldly is "No," and I confess that I had not picked up subsequently on Adler's evolution. My excuse is that I hail from the Rogerian camp. Having gotten that out of the way, I am greatly intrigued by several aspects of your conversation. Neither in order nor exclusively: (1) The study and appreciation of the growth and development of the ideas of any great thinker is always enlightening. (2) The notion of power, rather than pleasure, being fundamental to the psychology of neurosis rings true if one considers human evolution (the archaeology of neurosis and the theoretical reconstruction of human development, as it were). (3) Which leaves me in a position. The link to Durbin 2004 <http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-128445468.html> goes to an Oops page, regrettably.  I am left, as an unwashed and unlearned undergraduate, seeking bibliographical signposts. Where do you suggest I begin?

Farley,

You asked, Why is Objectivism used in Blended Learning, instead of Constructivist approaches? And: "Is Teaching an Art?" I mean, do we all forgot teachers, and concentrate to learners (students)?

I will offer my humble response to all three questions by referring you to the process of developing schools as learning organizations (LO) through communities of practice (CoP). Developing CoP requires shifting the bureaucratic model to a collaborative model focused on student outcomes. Therefore the focus is turned from evaluating what teachers do to observing what students do as a result of the teaching process and within a specific organizational culture.

Next, there are barriers to developing OL, though OL is desirable because it has been shown to result in improved student outcomes.  The lack of ability, motivation, and opportunity to transfer implicit knowledge creation between units within the organization, retain it, and apply it as student outcomes have been shown to be barriers to OL (Bartsch, Ebers & Maurer, 2012).

Creating CoP in schools has been shown to be key in developing OL and building capacity.  Administrators have influence on organizational culture and can provide resources to structure the organization in ways that promote "the daily habit of working together" (Fullan, 2005, p. 69).  When individuals build intra-organizational ties it increases capacity to overcome the obstacles to Organizational Learning (Bartsch, Ebers, Maurer, 2012).

Finally, the constructivist approach has through newer research been developed further to a cognitive sociocultural approach (Vygotsky, 1962) and includes co-construction of new knowledge between the individual and social group. This occurs in OL when the new knowledge is retained in the organization. Therefore to accomplish this requires the daily opportunity to work together and produce reciprocal projections in the organizational environment. The result is the development of the organization's identity/memory and feedback to the individuals within the organization on how to behave.

In sum, Objectivism can be used as part of teaching strategies in a Blended Learning Environment if shown to successfully produce observable student outcomes of new knowledge construction that is meaningful.  Meaningful learning transfers to new situations and therefore results in the outcomes defined under Constructivist approaches that consider learner agency as key.

Whether teaching is viewed as an Art or Science is dependent upon the observer and is therefore a valid perspective to the individual. Further, I do not think the research suggests we forget about teachers, though in creating learning organizations the focus shifts from observing teachers to observing and measuring student outcomes.

Therefore, teacher behavior is less relevant than the outcomes observed by students in response to teacher behavior. The key is to develop opportunities for teachers to work together, share their practices, including expert advise and support, develop shared values, norms, vision, and goals that match the collective mind and result in student meaningful learning.

Your questions are key to the new research and approaches to educational leadership, organizational learning, and psychosocial elements included in assessment models for the development of meaningful learning in schools.

Well done Farley,

Janet