Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning

TLDR

Constructivists agree only that knowledge is a social product, yet differ on premises and on what constitutes meaning negotiation, reflecting varying assumptions about learning and truth. The study examines these assumptions by contrasting three underlying world views. The three world views compared are mechanistic‑information processing, organismic‑radical constructivism, and Deweyan contextualism or transactional realism. The authors argue that Deweyan contextualism or transactional realism is most consistent with idea‑based social constructivism.

Abstract

At present, soda1 constructivists agree on little more than the important assumption that knowledge is a social product. Beyond this, there is little agreement about proems. Different viewpoints about what it means to negotiate meaning and what the object of that negotiation ought to be (i.e., strategies/skills versus big ideas) reflect different assumptions about learning and the nature of truth. We examine these assumptions by contrasting three underlying world views: mechanistic-information processing, organismic-radical constructivism, and Deweyan contextualism or transactional realism. This third world view, we argue, is most consistent with idea-based social constructivism.