.png)
.png)
Email this article 
Experience of constructivist interpretation of education
https://doi.org/10.15372/PEMW20190405
Abstract
The authors of the study note that modern practitioners and theorists of education in pedagogy, psychology, cybernetics and other sciences state the productivity of the application of constructionist ideas and the development of constructionist education technologies. Constructivism pays special attention to the fact that the main goal of modern education (education in the post-postmodern era) is the development of increasingly challenging and complex forms of consciousness and activity. Constructivism also pays special attention to the formulation and resolution of problems of education and professional work within the framework of the truth essence concept, the role of time and space in its comprehension or creation in the dialogue of people and groups. The authors consider the main problems of constructivist interpretation of education, as well as the supports and possibilities of introducing a constructionist approach at the level of ideology, methodology and education technologies; they reveal the functions and ways of implementing the functions of training and education based on the concept of education “platform”. The aim of the work was the analysis of the features of the constructivist interpretation of education, the description by the constructivists of the leading functions and the main ways of carrying out the functions of training and education by teachers and instructors. The authors believe that the constructionist model of education, as well as approaches similar to it (interactive or intersubjective, problem or genetic, contextual or meta-disciplinary) can and should become the focus of attention of researchers, including in the context of systematic methodological, theoretical, empirical and applied research.
About the Authors
M. R. ArpentievaRussian Federation
Mariam R. Arpentieva – doctor psychology science, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Developmental Psychology and Education
248023, Kaluga, 26, Razin strit
P. V. Menshikov
Russian Federation
Petr V. Menshikov – сandidate psychology science, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Developmental Psychology and Education
248023, Kaluga, 26, Razin strit
T. L. Khudyakova
Russian Federation
Tatyana L. Khudyakova – сandidate psychology science, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Practical Psychology
394043, Voronezh, 86, Lenin strit
O. P. Stepanovа
Russian Federation
Olga P. Stepanovа – сandidate psychology science, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Psychology
455000, Magnitogorsk, 38, Lenin Avenue
E. Yu. Shpakovskaya
Russian Federation
Elena Yu. Shpakovskaya – сandidate pedagogic science, associate professor of the Department of psychology
455000, Magnitogorsk, 38, Lenin Avenue
N. V. Kuznetsova
Russian Federation
Natalya V. Kuznetsova – Research Fellow at the Department of Recreational Geography and Tourism, Faculty of Geography
119991, Moscow, GSP-1, Lenin Hills
References
1. Kezin A. V. Radical constructivism: knowledge in the «cave». Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 7. Filosofiya = Moscow University Bulletin. Series 7. Philosophy, 2004, no. 4, pp. 3–24. (in Rus)
2. Gergen K. J. The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 1985, vol. 40 (3), pp. 266–275.
3. Daniel D. Pratt: Dobro poučavanje: Jedno rješenje za sve. Edupoint časopis, 2006, vol. 6 (8), pp. 29–37. (in Serb.)
4. Van Boxtel C., Van der Linden, Kanselaar G. Collaborative learning tasks of conceptual knowledge. Learn¬ing and Instruction, 2000, vol. 10 (4), pp. 311–330.
5. Robbins J. Contexts, collaboration and cultural tools: a sociocultural perspective on children»s thinking. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 2005, vol. 6 (2), pp. 140–149.
6. Rogoff B. The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, XIII, 448 p.
7. Wood D., Bruner J., Ross G. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-chiatry, 1976, vol. 17 (2), pp. 89–100.
8. Stone C. A. What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In: E. A. Forman, N. M. Minick, C. A. Stone (Eds.), Context for learning. Sociocultural dynamic in children development (pp. 169–183). New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Stone C. A. The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1998, vol. 31 (4), pp. 344–364.
10. Van de Pol J., Volman M., Beishuizen J. Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 2010, vol. 22 (3), pp. 271–297.
11. Wells G., Claxton G. Introduction: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. In: G. Wells, G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.
12. Tharp R. G., Gallimore R. Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in the social context. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988, 340 p.
13. Arpentieva M. R., Menshikov P. V. New educational practices in the context of a communicative approach. Professional’noye obrazovaniye v sovremennom mire = Professional education in the modern world, 2017, no. 3, pp. 1179–1185. DOI: 10.15372/PEMW20170306 (in Rus.)
14. Arpentieva M. R., Geraskina P. B., Lavrinenko S. V., Zalavina T. Y., Kamenskaya E. N., Tashche¬va A. I. Directions of psychological research of academic session. Astra Salvensis. – Revistã de istorie şi culturã (review of history and culture), 2018, Year VI, Supplement 2, pp. 645–663.
15. Bogomolova E. A., Menshikov P. V., Arpentieva M. R., Gorelova I. V., Zalavina T. Yu. The ability to learn and ability to teach: learning and teaching styles. Advances in Social Science Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR). Paris, France, Amsterdam, Netherlands: AtlantisPress, 2018. Vol. 198. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Theory and Practice of Personality Formation in Modern Society (ICTPPFMS 2018) / Ed. by D. A. Chinakhov. pp. 146–153.
16. Menshikov P. V., Arpentieva M. R., Braitseva S. V. Didactic communication in the training of specialists in aerospace engineering. In: V. Borikov, S. Uchaikin, P. Baranov, V. Ivanova, A. Dolgih, I. Minin and O. Minin (Eds.). 6th International Forum for Young Scientists «Space Engineering». Сер. 6th International Forum for Young Scientists «Space Engineering»MATEC Web Conference 17–19 April 2018. (Electronic Edition) Tomsk: National Instruments Russia Corporation, 2018. Vol. 158. № 01 004. 1–5 р.
17. Arpentieva M. R., Menshikov P. V. Didactic communication: the ability to learn and the ability to learn. Ed. M. R. Arpentieva. Kaluga: Tsiolkovskiy Kaluga state university, 2017. 353 p. (in Rus.)
18. Arpentieva M. R., Menshikov P. V. New studies of didactic communication: the ability to learn and the ability to learn. Ed. M. R. Arpentieva. Kaluga, Tsiolkovskiy Kaluga state university Publ., 2017, 424 p. (in Rus.)
19. Menshikov P. V., Arpentieva M. R. Didactic communication modern and classical research. Ed. M. R. Arpentieva. Toronto: Altaspera Publishing, 2018. 341 p. (in Rus.)
20. Vittich V. A. Introduction to the theory of intersubjective management. Samara, Samara Scientific Center of RAS Publ., 2013, 64 p. (in Rus.)
21. Vittykh V. A., Moiseeva T. V. The concept of intersubjective learning. Obrazovatel»nyye resursy i tekhnologii = Educational resources and technology, 2014, no. 3 (6), pp. 4–8. (in Rus.)
22. Kashlev S. S. Interactive teaching methods. Minsk, TetraSystems Publ., 2013, 224 p. (in Rus.)
23. Verbitskiy A., Puchkovoy E. B. (Ed.) Cognitive psychology in education and management. Collective monograph. Moscow, Moscow State Pedagogical University Publ., 2017, 187 p. (in Rus.)
24. Sitarov V. A. Problem learning as one of the directions of modern learning technologies. Znaniye. Ponimaniye. Umeniye = Knowledge. Understanding. Skill, 2009, no. 1, pp. 148–157. (in Rus.)
25. Kraevskiy V. V., Khutorskoy A. V. The subject and general subject in educational standards. Pedagogika = Pedagogy, 2003, no. 2, pp. 3–10. (in Rus.)
26. Khutorskoy A. V. Meta-subject approach in training: Scientific-methodical manual. Moscow, Eidos Publ.; Publisher Institute for Human Education, 2016, 73 p. (in Rus.)
27. Babich N. Constructivism: learning and teaching. Vestnik Krasnoyarskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. V. P. Astaf»yeva = Bulletin of the Krasnoyarsk V. P. Astafiev State Pedagogical University, 2013, no. 3 (25), pp. 6–30. (in Rus.)
28. Wendt M. Konstruktivische Fremdsprachen Didaktik: Lerner – und handlungsorientierter Fremdsprachenunterricht. Tübingen, 1996. 112 s. (in Germ.)
29. Pluzhnikova N. N. Constructivism pedagogy as a methodological model of modern culture. Vestnik assotsiatsii vuzov turizma i servisa = Bulletin of the association of universities of tourism and service, 2016, no. 10 (3), pp. 65–74. (in Rus.)
30. Petrovichev V. M., Ivanova V. I. Methodological constructivism and culture of pedagogical research. Izvestiya Tul»skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. – Cer. «Gumanitarnyye nauki» = News of Tula State University. Ser. «Humanities», 2014, no. 4–1, pp. 39–47. (in Rus.)
31. Taylor S. Critical realism vs social constructionism & social constructivism: application to a social housing research study. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 2018, vol. 37 (2), pp. 216–222.
Supplementary files
For citation: Arpentieva M.R., Menshikov P.V., Khudyakova T.L., Stepanovа O.P., Shpakovskaya E.Y., Kuznetsova N.V. Experience of constructivist interpretation of education. Professional education in the modern world. 2019;9(4):3187-3194. https://doi.org/10.15372/PEMW20190405
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
