You are not logged in Log in


> About the Journal
> Board
> Policies
> Guidelines for Authors
> Acknowledgment to Reviewers
> Constructivist Community: Authors
> Constructivist E-Paper Archive (CEPA)
> Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

LATEST ISSUES

Volume 18
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 17
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 16
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 15
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 14
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 13
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 12
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 11
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 10
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 9
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 8
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 7
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 6
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 5
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 4
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 3
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1
Volume 2
Numbers 2–3
Number 1
Volume 1
Number 3
Number 2
Number 1

FOLLOW US

Twitter · LinkedIn · RSS Feed
Login to provide us with feedback
Issues ┆ Submit ┆ FAQ ┆ Index
Volume 13 · Number 2 · Pages 212–218
< Previous Paper · Next Paper >
Authors’ Response: Toward a Pluralistic and Dialogic Constructivism

Gastón Becerra & José Antonio Castorina

Log in to download the full text for free

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment

Share on

Abstract

Upshot: Furthering the commentators’ input, we seek to clarify the reasons that fueled some of our decisions when constructing the analytical framework introduced in the target article. We reassert our case of pursuing a pluralistic and dialogic constructivism. In particular we discuss the proposal of axes and tensions, such as knowledge/reality and individual/society. Finally, we discuss some of the alternative proposals suggested by the commentators, which are mainly based on what the constructivist research programs have in common.

Citation

Becerra G. & Castorina J. A. (2018) Authors’ response: Toward a pluralistic and dialogic constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 13(2): 212–218. http://constructivist.info/13/2/212

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

References

Bloor D. (1984) The strengths of the strong programme. In: Brown J. R. (ed.) Scientific rationality: The sociological turn. Springer, Dordrecht: 75–94. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Castorina J. A. (2016) La relación problemática entre neurociencias y educación: Condiciones y análisis crítico. Propuesta educativa 46(2): 26–41. http://ref.scielo.org/nf48n5
Kitchin R. (2014) Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society 1(1): 1–12 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053951714528481
Kuhn T. S. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. Second edition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kuhn T. S. (1977) The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Nudler O. (2009) Espacios controversiales: Hacia un modelo de cambio filosófico y científico. Miño y Dávila, Buenos Aires. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Piaget J. & García R. (1982) Psicogenesis e historia de la ciencia. Siglo XXI, Mexico. English translation: Piaget J. & García R. (1989) Psychogenesis and history of science. Columbia, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Piaget J. (1971) Insights and illusions of philosophy. Routledge, New York. Originally published in French as: Piaget J. (1965) Sagesse et illusions de la philosophie. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rescher N. (1977) Dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. State University of New York Press, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Riegler A. (2005) Editorial. The constructivist challenge. Constructivist Foundations 1(1): 1–8. http://constructivist.info/1/1/001

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.