DOCSLIB.ORG

From Cognitive Science to Social Epistemology David Alexander Eck University of South Florida, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Cognitive Science to Social Epistemology David Alexander Eck University of South Florida, Mrdavideck@Yahoo.Com University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 3-12-2015 The ncE ultured Mind: From Cognitive Science to Social Epistemology David Alexander Eck University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Philosophy Commons Scholar Commons Citation Eck, David Alexander, "The ncE ultured Mind: From Cognitive Science to Social Epistemology" (2015). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5472 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Encultured Mind: From Cognitive Science to Social Epistemology by David Eck A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Alexander Levine, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Stephen Turner, Ph.D. Charles Guignon, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D. William Goodwin, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 12, 2015 Keywords: enactivism, participatory sense-making, embodied knowledge, tacit knowledge, testimonial knowledge Copyright © 2015, David Eck Dedication To Lauren, whose understanding and support lie quietly between the lines of the many pages that follow. Acknowledgments It is hard to imagine the existence of the following project—never mind its completion—without the singular help of Alex Levine. His scholarship is as remarkable as it is unassuming, only surpassed by his concern for others and readiness to help. I must express immense thanks for the assistance of Stephen Turner, whose intellectual candor and acuity repeatedly spurred the dissertation forward. I am also especially thankful to Charles Guignon—for his kindness and philosophical subtlety; to Joanne Waugh—for her enlivening conversations, not least those concerning Plato; and to William Goodwin—for his steadfast questioning, which has added valuable perspectives to the project. My committee members have been invaluable mentors—in philosophy and much else. All of the errors in the following—I assure you—are mine. I would like to also thank the USF philosophy community as a whole, from the teachers and staff to my fellow graduate students. A special thanks to Roger Ariew, whose philosophical sensibilities and historical acumen have greatly improved my own. My fellow graduate students have helped me at every turn, most of all Andrew Winters who shepherded me through the entire writing process. I would like to also stress Brian Dunst’s contributions, whose own dissertation dispelled the impasse that I found myself at. Nate Draluck and Jared Kinggard, both of whom are veritable oracles, have been instrumental; “It’s just one big paper.” To name only some of the many others who have supported me: Phil Scuderi, Steve Burgess, Megan Altman, Adam Buben, Casey Rentmeester, Pete Olen, Michael Thompson, Michelle Merritt, Ali Elamin, David Cheely, Christine Wieseler, Sarah Wieten, Dahlia Guzman, Anthony Fernandez, and Carter Hardy. Also, I want to separately thank those who began graduate school with me and made the transition worthwhile: Brian Mintey, Sacha Greer, Mark Castricone, Emre Keskin, and Greg McCreery. (I hope you didn’t expect my acknowledgements to be brief—the following dissertation claims that philosophers have systematically marginalized the social dimensions of knowledge.) The philosophy department at Lehigh University set me up to succeed. Gordon Bearn taught me more than could be put into words and much else that can. Rick Matthews turned his classes into living Socratic dialogues or group therapy sessions, it was never clear which but it was always transformative. Roslyn Weiss opened up to me the wonders of ancient philosophy. Mark Bickhard taught me the productivity of error. I would be remiss to not also thank Hannah Behrmann, Alex Ganim, John Pettegrew, Seth Moglen, Erin Seeba, Donna Wagner, Olga Stewart, Fareed Awan, Molly Luft, Emily Wettstein, Joey, Jess, Pat, and Colin. My insatiable curiosity, questioning disposition, and love of conversation is due in no small part to a rich network of hometown friends. Thank you Cutter, Jesse, Eric, Dylan, Paul, JP and many others. For food, wine, literature, and stonelaying, I am eternally indebted to the entire Miele-Wood clan, especially Cutter, Erin, Gloria, Jim, Liz, Bob, Dante, and Marcia. As with most good stories, mine begins with a singular family experience. My mother’s love was only matched by her unflinching example of independence. My older brother Jake’s forced impressment into helping with his newspaper route instilled in me the determination and space for contemplation necessary to be a philosopher. Amber, Brandon, Adriana, and Rachel, among other things, remind me of the adolescent injustices I inflicted upon them and the need to compromise without compromising oneself. Thanks also go to Grandmérè, Erica, Ralph, the Lee family; and to my father. Chad and Linda have been great friends. And a final thanks to Lauren, who has buoyed me, Jon and Jackie, and the Wagner, Anderson, and Troup families. Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1: The Testimony View ......................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Epistemology’s Litmus Test ..........................................................................................3 1.2 The Nature and Domain(s) of Testimony ....................................................................10 1.2.1 Elizabeth Fricker’s Partitioning of Testimony’s Domain .............................10 1.2.2 Jennifer Lackey on the Nature of Testimony ................................................13 1.2.3 John Greco’s “Friendly” Epistemic Environments .......................................18 1.3 The Transmission Thesis versus The Transmission View ...........................................22 1.4 Alvin Goldman’s Reliabilism ......................................................................................25 1.5 Goldman’s Epistemics Project: Some Major Issues ....................................................30 1.5.1 Epistemics: An Overview .............................................................................30 1.5.2 Epistemics and the Generality Problem ........................................................32 1.5.3 Epistemics’ Conception of Intelligence and the Basing Relation Problem ............................................................................................................34 1.5.4 Epistemics’ Conception of Intelligence and the Pursuit of Knowledge .......................................................................................................37 1.6 Truth-Oriented Social Epistemology ...........................................................................41 1.6.1 Testimony within Goldman’s Social Epistemics ..........................................42 1.6.2 Epistemic Paternalism and Epistemics’ Two Loci of Control ......................46 1.6.3 Concluding Thoughts on Truth-Oriented Social Epistemology and Epistemics ........................................................................................................50 1.7 Kusch’s Communitarian Critique of the Testimony Literature ...................................54 Chapter 2: The Translation View ...................................................................................................61 2.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................61 2.1 Polanyi on Tacit Knowledge: Imitative Learning within Traditions ...........................63 2.2 Dreyfus and Searle: Tacit Knowledge as a Transferable Objective Precondition .................................................................................................................71 2.3 Substitutes for the Normative ......................................................................................85 2.4 The Cognitive Basis for the Translation View: Connectionism and Mirror Neurons .......................................................................................................................93 2.5 Social Theory: Individualist or Collectivist? .............................................................108 Chapter 3: Coordinated Interaction ..............................................................................................112 i 3.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................112 3.1 From Autopoietic Machines to Sense-Making: The Enactivist Approach to Cognition ...................................................................................................................114 3.2 Teleology, Adaptivity, and Other Forbidden Things .................................................126 3.3 An Enactivist Approach to the Social: Participatory Sense-Making .........................134 3.4 Extended Functionalism? ...........................................................................................146
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Presidential Address
    Empowering Philosophy Christia Mercer COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Presidential Address delivered at the one hundred sixteenth Eastern Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association in Philadelphia, PA, on January 10, 2020. The main goal of my presidential address in January 2020 was to show that philosophy’s past offers a means to empower its present. I hoped to encourage colleagues to make the philosophy we teach and practice more inclusive (both textually and topically) and to adopt a more public- facing engagement with our discipline. As I add these introductory remarks to my January lecture, it is June 2020 and the need to empower philosophy has never seemed more urgent. We’ve witnessed both the tragic death of George Floyd and the popular uprising of a diverse group of Americans in response to the ongoing violence against Black lives. Many white Americans—and many philosophers—have begun to realize that their inattentiveness to matters of diversity and inclusivity must now be seen as more than mere negligence. Recent demonstrations frequently contain signs that make the point succinctly: “Silence is violence.” A central claim of my January lecture was that philosophy’s status quo is no longer tenable. Even before the pandemic slashed university budgets and staff, our employers were cutting philosophy programs, enrollments were shrinking, and jobs were increasingly hard to find. Despite energetic attempts on the part of many of our colleagues to promote a more inclusive approach to our research and teaching, the depressing truth remains:
    [Show full text]
  • The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition
    THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF EMBODIED COGNITION Embodied cognition is one of the foremost areas of study and research in philosophy of mind, philosophy of psychology and cognitive science. The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition is an outstanding guide and reference source to the key philosophers, topics and debates in this exciting subject and essential reading for any student and scholar of philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Comprising over thirty chapters by a team of international contributors, the Handbook is divided into six parts: Historical underpinnings Perspectives on embodied cognition Applied embodied cognition: perception, language, and reasoning Applied embodied cognition: social and moral cognition and emotion Applied embodied cognition: memory, attention, and group cognition Meta-topics. The early chapters of the Handbook cover empirical and philosophical foundations of embodied cognition, focusing on Gibsonian and phenomenological approaches. Subsequent chapters cover additional, important themes common to work in embodied cognition, including embedded, extended and enactive cognition as well as chapters on embodied cognition and empirical research in perception, language, reasoning, social and moral cognition, emotion, consciousness, memory, and learning and development. Lawrence Shapiro is a professor in the Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin – Madison, USA. He has authored many articles spanning the range of philosophy of psychology. His most recent book, Embodied Cognition (Routledge, 2011), won the American Philosophical Association’s Joseph B. Gittler award in 2013. Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy are state-of-the-art surveys of emerging, newly refreshed, and important fields in philosophy, providing accessible yet thorough assessments of key problems, themes, thinkers, and recent developments in research.
    [Show full text]
  • The Epistemology of Racism and Community-Based
    THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF RACISM AND COMMUNITY-BASED ASSESSMENT PRACTICE By ASAO B. INOUE A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of English May 2005 © Copyright by ASAO B. INOUE, 2005 All Rights Reserved © Copyright by ASAO B. INOUE, 2005 All Rights Reserved To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of ASAO B. INOUE find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. ___________________________________ Chair ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Victor Villanueva, Dr. Rory Ong, and Dr. William Condon for their careful reading of earlier drafts of this dissertation. Additionally, I appreciate Dr. Peter Elbow’s gracious help and copious suggestions on an earlier version of chapter five, a version of which appeared in the journal Assessing Writing 10.1 (2005). Most of all, I thank kelly Inoue for supporting me, keeping my life in order, and making it possible for me to do the work required for this dissertation. iii iv THE EPISTEMOLGY OF RACISM AND COMMUNITY-BASED ASSESSMENT PRACTICE Abstract by Asao B. Inoue, Ph.D. Washington State University May 2005 Chair: Victor Villanueva, Jr. This is a discussion that theorizes the epistemology of racism and incorporates it into a critical writing pedagogy. It uses primarily a critical sophistic pedagogy, a set of community- based assessment practices, and a rhetoric of hard agreements, all theorized. This discussion draws primarily from three areas: (1) sophistic rhetorical and pedagogical theory, primarily discussions around nomos-physis, Protagoras’ man-measure doctrine and his antilogical heuristics for rhetorical invention; (2) cultural theory and theories surrounding the ideological and rhetorical construction of race, class, and power; and (3) composition theory, primarily assessment theory and critical pedagogical theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Epistemology
    Social Epistemology Franz Dietrich1 and Kai Spiekermann2 May 2019 Abstract Social epistemology studies knowledge in social contexts. Knowledge is ‘social’ when its holder communicates with or learns from others (Epistemology in groups), or when its holder is a group as a whole, literally or metaphorically (Epistemology of groups). Group knowledge can emerge explicitly, through aggregation procedures like voting, or implicitly, through institutions like deliberation or prediction markets. In the truth-tracking paradigm, group beliefs aim at truth, and group decisions at ‘correctness’ – in virtue of external facts that are empirical or normative, real or constructed, universal or relativistic, etc. Procedures and institutions are evaluated by epistemic performance: Are they truth-conducive? Do groups become ‘wiser’ than their members? We review several procedures and institutions, discussing epistemic successes and failures. Jury theorems provide formal arguments for epistemic success. Some jury theorems misleadingly conclude that ‘huge groups are infallible’ – an artefact of inappropriate premises. Others have defensible premises, and still conclude that groups outperform individuals, without being infallible. Social Epistemology is the branch of Epistemology which studies knowledge in social contexts. In this review, we first set the stage by introducing clarifications, distinctions, and applications (Section 1). We then discuss formal procedures (Section 2) and informal institutional arrangements (Section 3) which generate collective beliefs or decisions that ‘track the truth’, or instead lead to epistemic failures (Section 4). 1 Scope and problems of social epistemology 1.1 Epistemology in groups versus epistemology of groups A first distinction pertains to the knowledge holder, who is either a group member or the group as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • GROUP COGNITION Pin 805 (8:22:39 PM): Concur* GROUP COGNITION Information Science and Technology, Drexel University
    v (8: : 6 ): O ay, t we s ou d Sup (8:22:17 PM): ok Avr (8:22:28 PM): A = 1/2bh Avr (8:22:31 PM): I believe pin 805 (8:22:35 PM): yes pin 805 (8:22:37 PM): i concue Gerry Stahl is Associate Professor in the College of COGNITION GROUP pin 805 (8:22:39 PM): concur* GROUP COGNITION Information Science and Technology, Drexel University. Avr (8:22:42 PM): then find the area of Computer Support for Building He is founding coeditor of the International Journal of > Avr (8:22:54 PM): oh, wait Collaborative Knowledge Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. computer science Sup (8:23:03 PM): the base and height are Gerry Stahl Avr (8:23:11 PM): no > Innovative uses of global and local networks of linked “In this bold and brilliant book, Stahl integrates three distinct fields of knowledge: computa- computers make new ways of collaborative working, tional design, communication studies, and the learning sciences. Such an interdisciplinary learning, and acting possible. In Group Cognition Gerry effort is both timely and necessary to foster innovations for human learning. This book shows Stahl explores the technological and social reconfigura- how small-group cognition can be the underlying building block for individual and collective GROUP COGNITION tions that are needed to achieve computer-supported knowledge building.” collaborative knowledge building—group cognition that —Sten Ludvigsen, Professor and Director of InterMedia, University of Oslo Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge transcends the limits of individual cognition. Computers can provide active media for social group cognition “This book, which synthesizes research by a leading thinker in computer-supported collabo- where ideas grow through the interactions within groups rative learning, offers a thought-provoking and challenging thesis on the relationship of people; software functionality can manage group between collaboration, technology mediation, and learning.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Aspects of Scientific Knowledge
    1 Social Aspects of Scientific Knowledge Ilkka Niiniluoto ABSTRACT. From its inception in 1987 social epistemology has been divided into analytic (ASE) and critical (CSE) approaches, represented by Alvin I. Goldman and Steve Fuller, respectively. In this paper, the agendas and some basic ideas of ASE and CSE are compared and assessed by bringing into the discussion also other participants of the debates on the social aspects of scientific knowledge – among them Raimo Tuomela, Philip Kitcher and Helen Longino. The six topics to be analyzed include individual and collective epistemic agents; the notion of scientific community; realism and constructivism; truth-seeking communities; epistemic and social values; science, experts, and democracy. KEYWORDS. democracy, epistemic values, experts, scientific community, scientific realism, social epistemology, truth-seeking, Introduction: Analytic and Critical Social Epistemology Social epistemology studies knowledge from a social point of view. As a complement to empirical studies, such as the sociology of knowledge and the sociology of science, social epistemology aims to provide a normative philosophical account of knowledge as a collective achievement. Even though the term dates from the 1950s, the work in this field started in 1987 with a special issue of Synthese, edited by Frederick Schmitt, and the new journal Social Epistemology – A Journal of Knowledge, Culture, and Policy, founded by Steve Fuller. In the next year Fuller published a monograph with the title Social Epistemology. Alvin I. Goldman, who published in the 1987 Synthese issue an article on “Social Epistemics”, developed his reliabilist epistemology in the direction of social practices in his Knowledge in a Social World (1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Social Epistemology and the Project of Mapping Science
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2015 Social Epistemology and the Project of Mapping Science Kamili Posey Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1097 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE PROJECT OF MAPPING SCIENCE BY KAMILI POSEY A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York. 2015 © 2015 KAMILI POSEY All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Nikolas Pappas ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ Date Chair of Examining Committee Iakovos Vasiliou ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ Date Executive Officer Samir Chopra ______________________________________________ Linda Alcoff ______________________________________________ Robert Sinclair ______________________________________________ Supervisory Committee THE
    [Show full text]
  • Social Epistemology: Theory and Applications
    1 2 Social Epistemology: Theory and 3 Applications 4 5 6 ALVIN I. GOLDMAN 7 8 9 1. Mainstream Epistemology and Social Epistemology 10 11 Epistemology has had a strongly individualist orientation, at least 12 since Descartes. Knowledge, for Descartes, starts with the fact of 13 one’s own thinking and with oneself as subject of that thinking. 14 Whatever else can be known, it must be known by inference from 15 one’s own mental contents. Achieving such knowledge is an individ- 16 ual, rather than a collective, enterprise. Descartes’s successors largely 17 followed this lead, so the history of epistemology, down to our own 18 time, has been a predominantly individualist affair. 19 There are scattered exceptions. A handful of historical epistemolo- 20 gists gave brief space to the question of knowing, or believing justifi- 21 ably, based on the testimony of others. Testimony-based knowledge 22 would be one step into a more social epistemology. Hume took it for 23 granted that we regularly rely on the factual statements of others, and 24 argued that it is reasonable to do so if we have adequate reasons for 25 trusting the veracity of these sources. However, reasons for such 26 trust, according to Hume, must rest on personal observations of 1 27 people’s veracity or reliability. Thomas Reid took a different view. 28 He claimed that our natural attitude of trusting others is reasonable 29 even if we know little if anything about others’ reliability. 30 Testimony, at least sincere testimony, is always prima facie credible th 31 (Reid, 1970: 240–241).
    [Show full text]
  • Kierkegaard and the Funny by Eric Linus Kaplan a Dissertation
    Kierkegaard and the Funny By Eric Linus Kaplan A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Alva Noë, co-chair Professor Hubert Dreyfus, co-chair Professor Sean D. Kelly Professor Deniz Göktürk Summer 2017 Abstract Kierkegaard and the Funny by Eric Linus Kaplan Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy University of California, Berkeley Professor Alva Noë, co-chair Professor Hubert Dreyfus, co-chair This dissertation begins by addressing a puzzle that arises in academic analytic interpretations of Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript. The puzzle arises when commentators try to paraphrase the book’s philosophical thesis “truth is subjectivity.” I resolve this puzzle by arguing that the motto “truth is subjectivity” is like a joke, and resists and invites paraphrase just as a joke does. The connection between joking and Kierkegaard’s philosophical practice is then deepened by giving a philosophical reconstruction of Kierkegaard's definition of joking as a way of responding to contradiction that is painless precisely because it sees the way out in mind. Kierkegaard’s account of joking and his account of his own philosophical project are used to mutually illuminate each other. The dissertation develops a phenomenology of retroactive temporality that explains how joking and subjective thinking work. I put forward an argument for why “existential humorism” is a valuable approach to life for Kierkegaard, but why it ultimately fails, and explain the relationship between comedy as a way of life and faith as a way of life, particularly as they both relate to risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Plasticity and Aesthetic Identity; Or, Why We Need a Spinozist Aesthetics Tom Sparrow
    Plasticity and Aesthetic Identity; or, Why We Need a Spinozist Aesthetics Tom Sparrow abstract This essay defends the view that, as embodied, our identities are necessarily dependent on the aesthetic environment. Toward this end, it ex- amines the renewal of the concept of sensation (aisthesis) in phenomenology, but then concludes that the methodology and metaphysics of phenomenology must be abandoned in favor of an ontology that sees corporeal identity as generated by the materiality of aesthetic relations. It is suggested that such an ontology is available in the work of Spinoza, which helps break down the natu- ral/artificial and human/nonhuman distinctions, and can thereby engender an environmental ethics grounded in aesthetic relations. An explication of body/ world dependence is provided via the concept of plasticity and a properly Spinozist aesthetics is invoked, but remains to be worked out. keywords Merleau-Ponty, Levinas, Spinoza, phenomenology, body, em- bodiment, space, plasticity The general conditions of esthetic form […] are objective in the sense of be- longing to the world of physical materials and energies: while the latter do not suffice for an esthetic experience, they are sinea qua non of its existence. – John Dewey, Art As Experience Introduction: Sensation and Identity Among those interested in the history of phenomenology, and the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty in particular, it is common knowledge that the phenomenology of the body articulated in Phenomenology of Per- ception owes an incredible debt to Edmund Husserl’s second volume of Ideas.1 This is the book where Husserl talks at length about the body. The themes of bodily kinaesthetics and motility, operative intentional- ity, pass ive synthesis – distinctly corporeal acts in Merleau-Ponty’s work – are all taken up from Husserl’s analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Medieval Social Epistemologies of Augustine and Aquinas
    Knowing and Trusting: The Medieval Social Epistemologies of Augustine and Aquinas by Matthew Kent Siebert A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Toronto 2014 © Copyright by Matthew Kent Siebert, 2014 Knowing and Trusting The Medieval Social Epistemologies of Augustine and Aquinas Matthew Kent Siebert Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Toronto 2014 Abstract This dissertation is an introductory exploration of two influential medieval thinkers, Augustine and Aquinas, on the topic of testimony. I explain how Augustine’s view that testimony is a source of knowledge (notitia) developed through four stages, and argue that on Augustine’s view testimonial belief is justified inferentially. I argue that Aquinas thinks some testimonial belief is justified inferentially, and some is justified by adhering to the speaker as the formal object of one’s belief, on the grounds that the speaker is truthful. I argue that these provide knowledge when they provide cognitio. And I argue that Aquinas’s view can be developed into a plausible account of testimonial trust and trustworthiness. ii Acknowledgments I am extremely grateful for the guidance and support of Peter King, Martin Pickavé, and Jennifer Nagel in the writing of this dissertation. I am also grateful to Deborah Black, Michael Siebert, Simona Vucu, and Ian Drummond, for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts of some of these chapters. And I am grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Government of Ontario, and the University of Toronto for financial support.
    [Show full text]
  • Students' Social Construction of Knowledge Through Cooperative
    sustainability Article Students’ Social Construction of Knowledge through Cooperative Learning Jurgita Lenkauskaite˙ 1 , Jordi Colomer 2,3 and Remigijus Bubnys 1,* 1 Institute of Education, Siauliai University, 25 Visinskio Street, 76351 Siauliai, Lithuania; [email protected] 2 Department of Physics, University of Girona, 17003 Girona, Spain; [email protected] 3 Teaching Innovation Networks on Reflective and Cooperative Learning, Institute of Sciences Education, University of Girona, 17003 Girona, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 September 2020; Accepted: 15 November 2020; Published: 18 November 2020 Abstract: The objective of this manuscript is twofold: to critically analyze the principles of epistemic diversity and democracy and perform an analysis of the social construction of knowledge by university students through cooperative learning. The semi-structured interview methodology employed in the research revealed that the students provided a positive assessment of the possibilities of cooperation in heterogeneous teams: the array of experiences that were emerging in the process helped the students in the tertiary systems transcend the boundaries of their knowledge, share experiences, and construct new knowledge together. The research also highlighted students’ critical attitudes towards previous teamwork experiences, which relied more on an individualist than social approaches to knowledge. It also reflected on the causes and consequences of those experiences. Student interviews revealed a variety of difficulties the students were facing during team cooperation. The unconventional study process, centred on active and independent performance, social construction of knowledge, triggered confusion of the students’ roles, dissatisfaction with the unequal contributions by the team members to the common work, and the lack of teachers’ intervention.
    [Show full text]