# data[].attributes.body
Youtube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ideas that Self-Destruct when You Think Them Through. (Logical Positivism)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ford and Taylor Scientific Management (Edited)

# data[].attributes.headline
                                   Post Positivism

# data[].attributes.subject
                                   Post Positivism

# data[].attributes.body
Post Positivism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Post-Positivism as a Philosophy of Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Logical positivism: Logical positivism, a philosophical movement that arose in Vienna in the 1920s and was characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and that all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless. A brief treatment of logical positivism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Citation: Huitt, W. (2009). Constructivism. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved [date], from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/construct.html

Return to: | Overview of the Cognitive System | EdPsyc Interactive: Courses |

The constructivistic approach to teaching and learning is based on a combination of a subset of research within cognitive psychology and a subset of research within social psychology, just as behavior modification techniques are based on operant conditioning theory within behavioral psychology. The basic premise is that an individual learner must actively "build" knowledge and skills (e.g., Bruner, 1990) and that information exists within these built constructs rather than in the external environment. [See Ullman (1980) versus Gibson (1979) for an overview of this controversy within the cognitive perspective.] However, all advocates of constructivism agree that it is the individual's processing of stimuli from the environment and the resulting cognitive structures, that produce adaptive behavior, rather than the stimuli themselves (, 1982). John Dewey (1933/1998) is often cited as the philosophical founder of this approach; Ausubel (1968), Bruner (1990), and Piaget (1972) are considered the chief theorists among the cognitive constructionists, while (1978) is the major theorist among the social constructionists. Activity theory and situated learning are two examples of modern work based on the work of Vygotsky and some of his followers.

A major problem is that making connections between thinking (in terms of knowledge, intellectual skills, attitudes, etc.) and behavior has proven very illusive (Doyle, 1997). One reason is that other factors, such as situational variables, emotions, and consequences, all play an important role in the production of overt, adaptive behavior. As Doyle points out

Mental representations such as attitudes, mental models, scripts, and schemas are, of course, related to behavior, but the relationship is often complex and counterintuitive. There is also a growing body of evidence that suggests that the mental representations on which decisions and behavior are based can be highly variable depending on subtle aspects of the particular situation or context decision makers are in at any given time (Payne et al., 1992), making it difficult to generalize results across task and domain differences. Until more is known about the form, content, and function of mental models of systems in a particular research setting, assessments of systems thinking interventions should measure both behavioral and cognitive changes.

At this point, without a unifying theory as to how the different learning theories interact within a single individual to produce behavior, we have to study these different viewpoints independently and then piecemeal them together into a school curriculum. However, acceptance of a particular viewpoint provides a different starting point for curriculum development. Fennimore and Tinzmann (1990) suggest a difference between a behaviorally-oriented curriculum in which knowledge and skills are taught discretely and then inductively connected versus the constructivistically-oriented classroom in which students acquire content while carrying out tasks requiring higher-order thinking:

An example should help clarify this characteristic of a thinking curriculum. Summarizing is a common skill learned in school. In conventional curricula, young students frequently are expected to learn how to summarize by first learning each "step" in the summarizing process. They are taught these steps one at a time. Ample time is given to practice the first step; for example, categorizing items or activities described in a text under a more inclusive label. Indeed, they may complete numerous worksheets on categorizing. Then, the teacher may teach them a second "step;" for example, deleting redundant information. Again, the students practice. This approach continues until students have been taught all the steps or subprocesses thought to be involved in summarizing. In short, curriculum tends to routinize the task. Finally, students are asked to put all these subskills together. Unfortunately, many students cannot do this---they are stuck at the subskill level, each of which they might perform beautifully, but which they cannot integrate into a smooth process of summarizing.

In contrast, in a thinking curriculum, summarizing would be conceived and taught as a holistic process. Rather than fragmenting the process, it would be taught in a context or environment in which students can succeed. For young children, this might mean asking them first to summarize relatively short paragraphs that deal with information with which they are very familiar. The teacher may also ask students to work collaboratively to summarize information at this initial learning stage. As students gain skill and confidence in summarizing, the teacher would ask them to summarize longer paragraphs, perhaps containing less familiar information. In summary, a thinking curriculum always treats tasks as indivisible wholes; variations that acknowledge the novice status of the learner are changes the teacher can make in the environment.

Bruner (see , 1999) provides the following principles of constructivistic learning:

1. Instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn (readiness).

2. Instruction must be structured so that it can be easily grasped by the student (spiral organization).

3. Instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the gaps (going beyond the information given).

Advocates of a constructivistic approach suggest that educators first consider the knowledge and experiences students bring with them to the learning task. The school curriculum should then be built so that students can expand and develop this knowledge and experience by connecting them to new learning. Advocates of the behavioral approach, on the other hand, advocate first deciding what knowledge or skills students should acquire and then developing curriculum that will provide for their development.

Using a framework developed by Dunn and Larson (1998) to explain the process of implementing elementary level technology curricula, Alesandrini and Larson (2002) specified ten events that provide the foundation for a constructivistic approach to instruction. They categorized these events into five components of an effective constructivistic lesson: investigation, invention, implementation, evaluation, and celebration.
Investigation
Clarifying: The students discuss the project among themselves in small groups and the teacher facilitates students as they determine what they need to know in order to complete the project.
Invention and Initial Implementation Further Implementation and Evaluation Celebration
Celebration: Students present their projects to the larger group while the larger group acknowledges the value of the effort and results of the group.

Those advocating a constructivisitic approach should consider there are a variety of principles from operant conditioning and information processing learning theories that can be utilized within this approach. For example, when mediating a student's learning it is certainly appropriate to teach a specific skill using direct instruction, observe students practicing the skill, and providing corrective feedback. The major issue is whether to start with a curriculum that is taught step-by-step in an inductive manner as suggested by the behaviorists or to start with the student's knowledge and understandings and help the child fill in gaps necessary to solve a situation-specific problem as suggested by the constructivists.

Principles of learning from an information processing perspective such as recognizing the limits of short-term memory, providing many opportunities for students to connect prior knowledge to current learning, and recognizing the need for spaced practice can also be implemented within a constructivistic approach. Again, the major distinction is in where to start: with a predesigned curriculum or with the student's experiences and knowledge base.

What is the correct approach? In my view the answer is "YES." If we start with the student's knowledge base before we have established desired end goals, there is a tendency to have the students simply "make progress," thereby limiting students who are not adequately prepared. These students may develop adequate thinking skills, but can have large gaps in their knowledge and skills. On the other hand, if we focus only on desired end goals, especially knowledge goals, without consideration of the student's acquired knowledge and background, we run the risk of developing knowledge and skills that have no meaning to the learner and are therefore easily forgotten.
References

Alesandrini, K., & Larson, L. (2002, January/February). Teachers bridge to constructivism. The Clearing House, 75(3), 118-121.

Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Dewey, J. (1933/1998) How we think (Rev. ed.). : Houghton Mifflin Company.

Doyle, J. K. (1997). The cognitive psychology of systems thinking. System Dynamics Review, 13(3): 253-265.

Dunn, S., & Larson. R. (1998). Design technology: Children's engineering. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis Publishers (The Falmer Press).

Fennimore, T., & Tinzmann, M. (1990). What is a thinking curriculum? : North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved December 2002, from http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/thinking-ft.pdf

Gibson, J. J. (1979). An ecological approach to visual perception. : Houghton Mifflin.

Harnad, S. (1982) Neoconstructivism: A unifying theme for the cognitive sciences. In T. Simon & R. Scholes (Eds.), Language, mind and brain (1 - 11). : Erlbaum. Retrieved May 1999, from http://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad82.neoconst.html

Kearsley, G. (1994, 1999). Explorations in learning & instruction: The theory into practice database. : . Retrieved May 1999, from http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/

Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. : Basic Books.

Ullman, S. (1980) Against direct perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 373 - 415.

Return to: | Overview of the Cognitive System | Home Page |

All materials on this website [http://www.edpsycinteractive.org] are, unless otherwise stated, the property of William G. Huitt. Copyright and other intellectual property laws protect these materials. Reproduction or retransmission of the materials, in whole or in part, in any manner, without the prior written consent of the copyright holder, is a violation of copyright law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Citation: Huitt, W. (2009). Constructivism. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved [date], from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/construct.html Return to: | Overview of the Cognitive System | EdPsyc Interactive: Courses | The constructivistic approach to teaching and learning is based on a combination of a subset of research within cognitive psychology and a subset of research within social psychology, just as behavior modification techniques are based on operant conditioning theory within behavioral psychology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The theory of scientific management was established as a way to increase workers' productivity. The following are among the key principles underpinning scientific management: task simplification and division of labor boost productivity; management must control the planning of work down to its minutiae; and remuneration should be based on output. Scientific management encountered important difficulties in practice, including alienation of employees and difficulty balancing quality against the dominant theme of quantity. Several parallels can be drawn between Australia's training packages and scientific management. Like scientific management, training packages are based on the concept of performance of a limited and highly structured range of tasks. Consequently, the level of training packages'"atomization" of competencies adds to their level of complexity rather than addressing it constructively. Second, the scientific management paradigm is incompatible with "soft skills" or the affective/interpersonal domain. Deskilling and assessment of skill/knowledge is another problem area. One of the major problems with the training package concept is that it confuses education with "the material arrangements through which we seek to provide education" (namely, jobs and job descriptions). The temptation to "cut quality corners" is another problem associated with training packages that stems from their reliance on the principles of scientific management. (Contains 20 references.) (MN)

Descriptors: Adoption (Ideas), Competence, Competency Based Education, Educational Principles, Foreign Countries, Industrial Training, Instructional Materials, Job Skills, Job Training, Learning Modules, Learning Theories, Material Development, Postsecondary Education, Productivity, Skill Analysis, Skill Development, Theory Practice Relationship, Training Methods, Vocational Education

For full text: http://www.avetra.org.au/PAPERS%202001/hunter.pdf.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERIC - ED456282 - Training Packages: The Scientific Management of Education., 2001-Mar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The theory of scientific management was established as a way to increase workers' productivity. The following are among the key principles underpinning scientific management: task simplification and division of labor boost productivity; management must control the planning of work down to its minutiae; and remuneration should be based on output.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let's start our very brief discussion of philosophy of science with a simple distinction between epistemology and methodology. The term epistemology comes from the Greek word epistêmê, their term for knowledge. In simple terms, epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or of how we come to know. Methodology is also concerned with how we come to know, but is much more practical in nature. Methodology is focused on the specific ways - the methods - that we can use to try to understand our world better. Epistemology and methodology are intimately related: the former involves the philosophy of how we come to know the world and the latter involves the practice.

When most people in our society think about science, they think about some guy in a white lab coat working at a lab bench mixing up chemicals. They think of science as boring, cut-and-dry, and they think of the scientist as narrow-minded and esoteric (the ultimate nerd - think of the humorous but nonetheless mad scientist in the Back to the Future movies, for instance). A lot of our stereotypes about science come from a period where science was dominated by a particular philosophy - positivism - that tended to support some of these views. Here, I want to suggest (no matter what the movie industry may think) that science has moved on in its thinking into an era of post-positivism where many of those stereotypes of the scientist no longer hold up.

Let's begin by considering what positivism is. In its broadest sense, positivism is a rejection of metaphysics (I leave it you to look up that term if you're not familiar with it). It is a position that holds that the goal of knowledge is simply to describe the phenomena that we experience. The purpose of science is simply to stick to what we can observe and measure. Knowledge of anything beyond that, a positivist would hold, is impossible. When I think of positivism (and the related philosophy of logical positivism) I think of the behaviorists in mid-20th Century psychology. These were the mythical 'rat runners' who believed that psychology could only study what could be directly observed and measured. Since we can't directly observe emotions, thoughts, etc. (although we may be able to measure some of the physical and physiological accompaniments), these were not legitimate topics for a scientific psychology. B.F. Skinner argued that psychology needed to concentrate only on the positive and negative reinforcers of behavior in order to predict how people will behave - everything else in between (like what the person is thinking) is irrelevant because it can't be measured.

In a positivist view of the world, science was seen as the way to get at truth, to understand the world well enough so that we might predict and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic - they operated by laws of cause and effect that we could discern if we applied the unique approach of the scientific method. Science was largely a mechanistic or mechanical affair. We use deductive reasoning to postulate theories that we can test. Based on the results of our studies, we may learn that our theory doesn't fit the facts well and so we need to revise our theory to better predict reality. The positivist believed in empiricism - the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of the scientific method is the experiment, the attempt to discern natural laws through direct manipulation and observation.

OK, I am exaggerating the positivist position (although you may be amazed at how close to this some of them actually came) in order to make a point. Things have changed in our views of science since the middle part of the 20th century. Probably the most important has been our shift away from positivism into what we term post-positivism. By post-positivism, I don't mean a slight adjustment to or revision of the positivist position - post-positivism is a wholesale rejection of the central tenets of positivism. A post-positivist might begin by recognizing that the way scientists think and work and the way we think in our everyday life are not distinctly different. Scientific reasoning and common sense reasoning are essentially the same process. There is no difference in kind between the two, only a difference in degree. Scientists, for example, follow specific procedures to assure that observations are verifiable, accurate and consistent. In everyday reasoning, we don't always proceed so carefully (although, if you think about it, when the stakes are high, even in everyday life we become much more cautious about measurement. Think of the way most responsible parents keep continuous watch over their infants, noticing details that non-parents would never detect).

One of the most common forms of post-positivism is a philosophy called critical realism. A critical realist believes that there is a reality independent of our thinking about it that science can study. (This is in contrast with a subjectivist who would hold that there is no external reality - we're each making this all up!). Positivists were also realists. The difference is that the post-positivist critical realist recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable. In other words, the critical realist is critical of our ability to know reality with certainty. Where the positivist believed that the goal of science was to uncover the truth, the post-positivist critical realist believes that the goal of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never achieve that goal! Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist emphasizes the importance of multiple measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, and the need to use triangulation across these multiple errorful sources to try to get a better bead on what's happening in reality. The post-positivist also believes that all observations are theory-laden and that scientists (and everyone else, for that matter) are inherently biased by their cultural experiences, world views, and so on. This is not cause to give up in despair, however. Just because I have my world view based on my experiences and you have yours doesn't mean that we can't hope to translate from each other's experiences or understand each other. That is, post-positivism rejects the relativist idea of the incommensurability of different perspectives, the idea that we can never understand each other because we come from different experiences and cultures. Most post-positivists are constructivists who believe that we each construct our view of the world based on our perceptions of it. Because perception and observation is fallible, our constructions must be imperfect.

So what is meant by objectivity in a post-positivist world? Positivists believed that objectivity was a characteristic that resided in the individual scientist. Scientists are responsible for putting aside their biases and beliefs and seeing the world as it 'really' is. Post-positivists reject the idea that any individual can see the world perfectly as it really is. We are all biased and all of our observations are affected (theory-laden). Our best hope for achieving objectivity is to triangulate across multiple fallible perspectives! Thus, objectivity is not the characteristic of an individual, it is inherently a social phenomenon. It is what multiple individuals are trying to achieve when they criticize each other's work. We never achieve objectivity perfectly, but we can approach it. The best way for us to improve the objectivity of what we do is to do it within the context of a broader contentious community of truth-seekers (including other scientists) who criticize each other's work. The theories that survive such intense scrutiny are a bit like the species that survive in the evolutionary struggle. (This is sometimes called the natural selection theory of knowledge and holds that ideas have 'survival value' and that knowledge evolves through a process of variation, selection and retention). They have adaptive value and are probably as close as our species can come to being objective and understanding reality.

Clearly, all of this stuff is not for the faint-of-heart. I've seen many a graduate student get lost in the maze of philosophical assumptions that contemporary philosophers of science argue about. And don't think that I believe this is not important stuff. But, in the end, I tend to turn pragmatist on these matters. Philosophers have been debating these issues for thousands of years and there is every reason to believe that they will continue to debate them for thousands of years more. Those of us who are practicing scientists should check in on this debate from time to time (perhaps every hundred years or so would be about right). We should think about the assumptions we make about the world when we conduct research. But in the meantime, we can't wait for the philosophers to settle the matter. After all, we do have our own work to do!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let's start our very brief discussion of philosophy of science with a simple distinction between epistemology and methodology . The term epistemology comes from the Greek word epistêmê, their term for knowledge. In simple terms, epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or of how we come to know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Logical Positivism - Volume 28, Issue 11, May 1931

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Constructivism is an important learning theory that educators use to help their students learn. Constructivism is based on the idea that people actively construct or make their own knowledge, and that reality is determined by your experiences as a learner. Basically, learners use their previous knowledge as a foundation and build on it with new things that they learn. So everyone's individual experiences make their learning unique to them.

Constructivism is crucial to understand as an educator because it influences the way all of your students learn. Teachers and instructors that understand the constructivist learning theory understand that their students bring their own unique experiences to the classroom every day. Their background and previous knowledge impacts how they are able to learn. Educators are able to use constructivist learning theory to help their students understand their previous knowledge. If you're a current or aspiring educator, it's important to get the education and credentials you need. But it's also important to understand learning theories and how they impact you and your students. This guide will tell you more about the constructivist learning theory and how it helps you as a teacher.

There are many specific elements and principles of constructivism that shape the way the theory works and applies to students. Learn about the different principles of constructivism and how they make up the whole theory.

Knowledge is constructed. This is the basic principle, meaning that knowledge is built upon other knowledge. Students take pieces and put them together in their own unique way, building something different than what another student will build. The student's previous knowledge, experiences, beliefs, and insights are all important foundations for their continued learning.

People learn to learn, as they learn. Learning involves constructing meaning and systems of meaning. For example, if a student is learning the chronology of dates for a series of historical events, at the same time they are learning the meaning of chronology. If a student is writing a paper about history, they are also learning principles of grammar and writing as well. Each thing we learn gives us a better understanding of other things in the future.

Learning is an active process. Learning involves sensory input to construct meaning. The learner needs to do something in order to learn, it's not a passive activity. Learners need to engage in the world so they are actively involved in their own learning and development. You can't just sit and expect to be told things and learn, you need to engage in discussions, reading, activities, etc.

Learning is a social activity. Learning is directly associated to our connection with other people. Our teachers, our family, or peers, and our acquaintances impact our learning. Educators are more likely to be successful as they understand that peer involvement is key in learning. Isolating learnings isn't the best way to help students learn and grow together. Progressive education recognizes that social interaction is key to learning and they use conversation, interaction, and group applications to help students retain their knowledge.

Learning is contextual. Students don't learn isolated facts and theories separate from the rest of our lives-we learn in ways connected to things we already know, what we believe, and more. The things we learn and the points we tend to remember are connected to the things going on around us.

Knowledge is personal. Because constructivism is based on your own experiences and beliefs, knowledge becomes a personal affair. Each person will have their own prior knowledge and experiences to bring to the table. So the way and things people learn and gain from education will all be very different.

Learning exists in the mind. Hands-on experiences and physical actions are necessary for learning, but those elements aren't enough. Engaging the mind is key to successful learning. Learning needs to involve activities for the minds, not just our hands. Mental experiences are needed for retaining knowledge.

Motivation is key to learning. Students are unable to learn if they are unmotivated. Educators need to have ways to engage and motivate learners to activate their minds and help them be excited about education. Without motivation, it's difficult for learners to reach into their past experience and make connections for new learning.

There are different types of constructivism that educators can use to find success with this learning theory.

Cognitive. Cognitive constructivism focuses on the idea that learning should be related to the learner's stage of cognitive development. These methods work to help students in learning new information by connecting it to things they already know, enabling them to make modifications in their existing intelligence to accommodate the new information. Cognitive constructivism comes from the work of Jean Piaget and his research on cognitive development in children.

Social. Social constructivism focuses on the collaborative nature of learning. Knowledge develops from how people interact with each other, their culture, and society at large. Students rely on others to help create their building blocks, and learning from others helps them construct their own knowledge and reality. Social constructivism comes from Lev Vygotsky, and is closely connected to cognitive constructivism with the added element of societal and peer influence.

Radical. Radical constructivism is very different from cognitive and social constructivism. It focuses on the idea that learners and the knowledge they construct tell us nothing real, only help us function in our environment. The overall idea is that knowledge is invented, not discovered. The things we bring to the table make it impossible for us to have truth, only interpretations of knowledge. This theory was developed by Ernst von Glasersfeld in 1974.

It's important to understand how teachers can apply constructivism inside their classroom to create a unique learning environment for students. In constructivist classrooms, the teacher has a role to create a collaborative environment where students are actively involved in their own learning. Teachers are more facilitators of learning than actual instructors. Teachers must work to understand the preexisting conceptions and understanding of students, then work to incorporate knowledge within those areas. Teachers will also need to adjust their teaching to match the learner's level of understanding.

Constructivist classrooms rely on four key areas to be successful:

Shared knowledge between teachers and students.

Shared authority between teachers and students.

Teachers act as a guide or facilitator.

Learning groups consist of small numbers of students.

Constructivist classrooms are often very different from normal classrooms in many ways. Constructivist classrooms focus on student questions and interests, they build on what students already know, they focus on interactive learning and are student-centered, teachers have a dialogue with students to help them construct their own knowledge, they root in negotiation, and students work primarily in groups.

Constructivist classrooms often have teachers who do small group work, collaborative and interactive activities, and open dialogues about what students need in order to find success.

The biggest criticism of constructivist learning is its lack of structure. Some students need highly structured and organized learning environments to thrive, and constructivist learning focuses on a more laid-back method to help students engage in their own learning.

Grading is often removed from constructivist classrooms and places more value on student progress, which can lead to students falling behind and not meeting standardized grading requirements.

If you are hoping to become a teacher, a degree is crucial to getting on the right path. Additionally, it's valuable for teachers to understand different learning theories and how they impact their classroom and their students.

Subscribe to the WGU Blog

Stay up-to-date with the latest articles, tips, and insights from the team at WGU

Our focus on your success starts with our focus on four high-demand fields: K-12 teaching and education, nursing and healthcare, information technology, and business. Every degree program at WGU is tied to a high-growth, highly rewarding career path. Which college fits you?

Want to see all the degrees WGU has to offer? View all degrees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Constructivism is an important learning theory based on the idea that learners build on their existing foundation to learn new information. Learn more about constructivism and how it impacts education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ResearchGate is a network dedicated to science and research. Connect, collaborate and discover scientific publications, jobs and conferences. All for free.