396 research outputs found
Aprender ciencias en y para la comunidad
Durante algún tiempo, he afirmado que la educación científica necesita ser desinstitucionalizada para superar la profunda crisis que atraviesa actualmente. En este artículo describo formas en las cuales se puede pensar y poner en práctica esta desinstitucionalización en la enseñanza de las ciencias y en la práctica del diseño del currículo de ciencias. Se propone la teoría de la actividad como marco para conceptualizar diferentes sistemas de actividad y sus contradicciones. Proporciono ejemplos prácticos de mi actividad de enseñanza de una unidad de activismo ambiental y de mi diseño de un currículo apropiado para pueblos aborígenes a fin de mostrar una educación científica que se sitúa en el mundo diario de la comunidad.For some time now, I have argued that science education needs to be deinstitutionalized to overcome the deep crisis in which it currently finds itself. In the present paper, I outline ways in which such deinstitutionalization may be thought and enacted in science teaching and science curriculum design practice. Activity theory is proposed as a framework to conceptualize different activity systems and their contradictions. Practical examples from my own teaching of an environmental activist unit and designing a curriculum appropriate for indigenous peoples are provided to show a science education that situates itself in the everyday world of the community
Through the eyes of the learner
"δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη"Learning tends to be theorized, in research and curriculum practice, from the perspective of the known and seen, as is apparent in the idea that learners intentionally “construct” knowledge. We need to ask, however, how students who do not know the learning object (what the teacher wants them to know) can orient towards this unknown, unseen, and therefore unforeseen knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to bring the problematic of this learning paradox into sharp relieve by drawing on empirical examples from my research in a variety of settings. I then exhibit some core aspects of my findings, which, most importantly, highlight (a) the simultaneously active and passive aspects involved in any (perceptual) learning and (b) how the world and the objects it contains becomes independent of perception. I conclude by articulating some of the advantages that come with theorizing learning from the perspective of the learner – i.e., the perspective of the learning object as unknown, unseen, and unheardof – including the oftenforgotten emotional component
Ethics as social practice: debating ethics in qualitative research
'Ethische Fragen sind in der Humanforschung zunehmend wichtig geworden. Aus diesem Grund erscheint es angebracht, dass FQS den Fragen eine Debatte widmet, die sich mit den vielen ethischen Entscheidungsebenen in der qualitativen Forschung befassen. In diesem Beitrag greift der Autor auf persönliche Erfahrungen zurück, um die Ethikdebatte formell im Allgemeinen und die Beiträge im Besonderen einzuleiten. Die Leser und Leserinnen werden eingeladen, an dieser Debatte über ethische Fragen in der qualitativen Forschung teilzunehmen.' (Autorenreferat)'Ethical issues have become increasingly important in research involving human beings. It is fitting, therefore, that FQS devotes a debate focusing on issues that are concerned with the many layers of decision making when it comes to ethics in qualitative research. In this contribution, I use a personal context to formally introduce the ethics debate. I extend an invitation to readers to contribute to this debate of ethical issues in qualitative research.' (author's abstract
Heeding Wittgenstein on “Understanding” and “Meaning”: A Pragmatist and Concrete Human Psychological Approach in/for Education
Over 60 years ago, the influential language philosopher L. Wittgenstein suggested that there is no need to use "understanding" and "meaning" to understand how language works and, in fact, that the two theoretical terms are part of a primitive idea. Today, both remain two of the most frequently used terms in education. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate a discussion about abandoning these terms from the theoretical discourse of education in the way these are commonly used. Case materials from the research literature chosen from a large database on knowing and learning in science are used to exemplify the approach that does not require either concept. Implications are drawn for education research and practice
Mathematical Cognition and the Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel: A Critical, Cultural-historical Activity Theoretic Analysis
In its Final Report, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel has depicted a stark image of mathematical competencies and achievement among U.S. students. The Advisory Panel notes the lack of research with “truly scientific” rigor and, mentioning Vygotsky’s cultural-historical activity theory in passing, suggests its utility to be untested. In reading the report, I noted the limited understanding of the mathematics education literature it articulates and a complete failure to draw on established, “tried and proven,” theory and practice in mathematics education founded upon an encompassing culturalhistorical activity theory. This theory is comprehensive and encompassing, because it retains activity in its entirety as the unit of analysis, which leads to an integrated and integral consideration of those “factors” that are taken to be external to mathematical cognition in the Final Report. In this article, I articulate the current state-of-the-art understanding of cultural-historical activity theory and then use it to provide a critical perspective on the report, its recommendations, and its conclusions as these pertain to the learning of mathematics
Is mathematical knowledge constructed? a cultural-historical critique of object oriented conceptions of learning activity
It has become a truism (ideology) to state that mathematical knowledge is constructed collectively, in communities of practice, and individually, on the part of students whileengaging in mathematical tasks. However, construction implies an image of the end result of the labor process, which allows people to build a house and compare each step to the plan. Students, on the other hand, do not know the end product of their learning process, the new knowledge. This knowledge, therefore, cannot be the transitive object towards which construction is oriented. In this study, I provide a cultural-historical critique of objectoriented notions of learning activity. Using classroom episodes as examples, I propose an alternative based on L. S. Vygotsky’s commitment to the primacy of the social, whereby any higher psychological function was a social relation first. This allows the final product to be available in the present, as relation, without the learner’s conscious awareness, and thereby determine learning and development. The idea of the future acting in the present is captured in M. Cole’s notion of prolepsis. Implications are discussed with respect to curriculum design in mathematics classrooms
Translation and Its Consequences in Qualitative Social Research: On Distinguishing "the Social" from "the Societal"
The translation of research texts between different languages is a possible impossible (ROTH, 2013). With translation come serious dangers for theorizing when words are translated into terms that do not cover the same conceptual field. This study investigates one such instance, which pertains to the difference between the social and the societal, and which possibly has devastating effects on many theories in the sociocultural, cultural-historical, and societal historical tradition. In the German and Russian versions of his works, Karl MARX used apparently quite distinctly the equivalents of the English adjectives "social [sozial, social'nyj]" and "societal [gesellschaftlich, obščestvennyj]." Many scholars do not distinguish the two notions, and in English, both are translated into "the social." This article exhibits the conceptual distinction MARX makes by explicitly tying the emergence of the universal to society (exemplified in value) rather than to any smaller social group. In this vein, some phenomena, such as consciousness or the psyche are virtually always societal [gesellschaftlich, obščestvennyj]. Implications are sketched for the possibility of quite differently reading philosophical and psychological works in the MARXIAN tradition when the distinction is made.Die Übersetzung wissenschaftlicher Texte zwischen verschiedenen Sprachen ist ein mögliches Unmögliches (ROTH 2013). Übersetzen bringt für das Theoretisieren große Probleme mit sich: Worte werden mitunter in Terminologien transformiert, die nicht dasselbe begriffliche Feld abdecken. Die hier vorgestellte Studie befasst sich mit einem solchen Beispiel: dem konzeptuellen Unterschied zwischen dem Sozialen und dem Gesellschaftlichen. Die Verwechselung dieser beiden Begriffe beim Übersetzen kann gravierende Folgen für das Verständnis von Theorien in den soziokulturellen, kulturhistorischen und gesellschaftshistorischen Traditionen haben. In den deutschen und russischen Versionen seiner Arbeiten benützt Karl MARX die Begriffsäquivalente der englischen Adjektive social [sozial, social’nyj] und societal [gesellschaftlich, obščestvennyj] mit ganz unterschiedlicher Bedeutung. Viele Forschende halten die beiden Begriffe jedoch nicht auseinander, und ins Englische werden beide Begriffe als "the social" [das Soziale] übersetzt. In diesem Aufsatz wird die konzeptuelle Differenz dargestellt, die MARX bei dieser Begrifflichkeit in der Verbindung des Allgemeinen mit der Gesellschaft (am Beispiel des Wertes) anstatt mit irgendeiner beliebigen sozialen Gruppe vornimmt. Auf diese Weise werden bestimmte Phänomene, etwa das Bewusstsein oder das Psychische, immer gesellschaftlich verstanden [societal, obščestvennyj]. Verwechselungen dieser Art können zu ganz unterschiedliche Lesarten philosophischer und psychologischer Werke in der MARXschen Tradition führen
Translation in Qualitative Social Research: The Possible Impossible
En un mundo de investigación que se globaliza cada vez mas, comunicarse con colegas en el mismo idioma y la misma cultura y comunicarse con colegas de otras culturas y con otro fondo linguistico es un sine qua non en/de todas las ciencias, incluso en aquellas que usan métodos cualitativos. Últimamente la naturaleza del idioma se reconoce especialmente por aquellos científicos que se comunican con sus colegas en un idioma no nativo como el inglés el cual, de hecho, se ha vuelto la lingua franca científica. Aunque muchos son concientes de las dificultades de reproducir algo que un científco quiere decir en otro idioma, la naturaleza del idioma como un proceso que no es idéntico consigo mismo casi nunca es articulada. En lugar de ello la idea metafísica de los mismos "significados" que pueden ser reproducidos en múltiples idiomas por la via de la traducción – literalmente, "llevar al atro lado" – es endémica a la cultura científcia. En la mera definición de ciencia (por ejemplo, en la descripción de métodos de investigación) los experimentos deben operar de la misma manera, deben ser reproducidos, donde sea y por quien sean realizados. En esta contribución al debate acerca la traducción conducida en el contexto del debate FQS sobre "Calidad de la investigación cualitativa" formulo dimensiones teóricas y pragmáticas acerca del tema, recurriendo a investigaciones empírcas, trabajo literario e investigaciones filosóficas para explicar cómo la traducción es a la vez teóricamente imposible y lograda exhaustivamente en/como práctica cotidiana.URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1302132In einer zunehmend globalisierten Welt von Forschung und Wissenschaft ist die Kommunikation zwischen Wissenschaftler/innen einer Kultur und Sprache mit Wissenschaftler/innen anderer Kulturen und sprachlicher Herkunft eine unabdingbare Voraussetzung. Dies trifft auch für die qualitativen Sozialwissenschaften zu. In diesem Zusammenhang wird die Bedeutung von Sprache mehr oder weniger explizit anerkannt. Eine besondere Rolle spielt das Problem für Forschende, die sich mit Kolleg/innen in einer ihnen fremden Sprache austauschen – vornehmlich in der englischen Sprache, die de facto zur Lingua franca geworden ist. Obwohl viele Kolleg/innen sich der Schwierigkeiten bewusst sind, die sich ergeben, wenn Forschende etwas in einer anderen Sprache ausdrücken wollen, wird die Charakteristik der Übersetzung als ein nicht selbstidentischer Prozess selten explizit angesprochen. Im Gegenteil, in den Wissenschaften herrscht die metaphysische Idee desselben Bedeutungsgehalts vor, der in vielfältigen Sprachen durch Übersetzung identisch ausgedrückt werden kann. Die Definition wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis beinhaltet (z.B. in der Charakterisierung der wissenschaftlichen Methode), dass sie unabhängig von Ort und Person reproduziert werden kann. In diesem Beitrag zum Thema "Übersetzung", das im Rahmen der FQS-Debatte zur "Qualität qualitativer Forschung" behandelt wird, bespreche ich theoretische und praktische Dimensionen dieser Problematik. Anhand empirischer Transkriptionen, automatischer Übersetzungen, literarischer Werke und philosophischer Untersuchungen stelle ich dar, dass Übersetzung einerseits theoretisch unmöglich ist, andererseits aber tagtäglich als Praxis zustande gebracht wird.URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1302132In an increasingly globalized world of research, communicating with scholars in the same language and culture and with scholars from other cultures and linguistic background is a sine qua non in/of all sciences, including those using qualitative social research. The nature of language is at least latently recognized especially by those scholars who communicate with their peers in a non-native language, such as English, which has become de facto the scientific lingua franca. Although many are aware of the difficulties of rendering something a scholar wants to say in another language, the nature of language as a non-self-identical process is hardly if ever articulated. Instead, the metaphysical idea of the same "meanings" that can be rendered in multiple languages by means of translation—literally, "carried across"—is endemic to the scientific culture. In the very definition of science (e.g., in the description of research methods), experiments must operate the same (must be reproducible) wherever and by whomever these are conducted. In this contribution to the debate concerning translation, conducted in the context of the FQS debate "Quality of Qualitative Research," I articulate theoretical and pragmatic dimensions on the topic, drawing on empirical investigations, literary works, and philosophical investigations to explicate how translation is both theoretically impossible and pervasively achieved in/as everyday praxis.URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs130213
Historical Tidbits, the Shoah, and the Teaching of Mathematics
In this extended essay, I use cultural-historical activity theory to look at the questions Theodore Eisenberg raises about the inclusion of historical facts, both historical tidbits and ethically questionable tendencies and horrific actions (the Shoah), in the teaching of mathematics. I conclude by suggesting that the ultimate answer has to be one that involves a decision, which means that an answer cannot be provided a priori or be determined by any antecedent. Deciding to include this or that in a mathematical curriculum is an ethical act
The dialectic of the general and particular in social science research and teaching
"Cross-Cultural Research Methods" pretends to be a primer on the "how to" of conducting cross-cultural research, but focuses only on quantitative methods that use secondary data in the service of generating knowledge. The book is caught twice in the dialectic of the general and the specific, by putting all its eggs into the former basket and failing to recognize the role of the latter both in research itself and in the teaching of research methods to its readers. Because I know that the students in my graduate research methods course would fail to appreciate the book, I would neither select nor recommend it to others as a resource in teaching (quantitative) research methods or research designs courses
- …