Reviewing and Reappraising: Piaget’s Genetic Constructivism and Learning Theory from his Perspective

Bai Qian; Feng Youmei; Shen Shusheng; Li Yi

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.03.010

Volume 38 Issue 3

Mar. 2020

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences) > 2020 > 38(3): 106-116

Bai Qian, Feng Youmei, Shen Shusheng, Li Yi. Reviewing and Reappraising: Piaget’s Genetic Constructivism and Learning Theory from his Perspective[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(3): 106-116. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.03.010

Citation:

Bai Qian, Feng Youmei, Shen Shusheng, Li Yi. Reviewing and Reappraising: Piaget’s Genetic Constructivism and Learning Theory from his Perspective[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(3): 106-116. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.03.010

Citation:

PDF( 635 KB)

Reviewing and Reappraising: Piaget’s Genetic Constructivism and Learning Theory from his Perspective

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.03.010

School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China

Publish Date: 2020-03-01

Abstract

Abstract

In genetic theory, Piaget’s genetic constructivism of knowledge concept can be explained from two perspectives: From the perspective of the occurrence and construction of knowledge, knowledge and thinking are concomitant and develop together, with internal consistency. Knowledge is subordinate to thinking, and thinking is based on knowledge. In fact, they are two aspects of the state and process of the occurrence of knowledge. From the perspective of the occurrence and construction of structure, the occurrence of knowledge is the occurrence of knowledge structure which is caused by the occurrence of thinking. While knowledge structure is subordinate to thinking structure, the level of thinking determines the status and level of knowledge structure, and the realization of thinking is based on the knowledge structure. It’s found that constructivism learning theory only inherited Piaget’s “construction”, but missed the essence of “genetic”, thus ignoring the process of knowledge occurrence for learning theory, and eventually missing the in-depth understanding of the generation and development of knowledge. Re-examining the learning theory in the light of Piaget's genetic constructivism helps to gain new enlightenment on the concept of knowledge, learning and teaching.
- genetic constructivism,
- constructivism learning theory,
- Piaget,
- genetics,
- knowledge and thinking

FullText(HTML)

References(51)

References

[1]	陈琦, 张建伟. (1998). 建构主义学习观要义评析. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),(1),61−68.
[2]	陈文娟. (2019). 巧用思维导图助力高中政治教学. 中国教育学刊,(1),111.
[3]	戴歆紫, 王祖浩. (2017). 国外深度学习的分析视角及评价方法. 外国教育研究,(10),46−59.
[4]	杜丽燕. (1989). 皮亚杰的动态体系——发生认识论研究述评之一. 哲学动态,(2),4−6.
[5]	杜雄柏. (1995). “图式”学说: 康德与皮亚杰之比较研究. 湘潭师范学院学报(自然科学版),(1),27−30.
[6]	冯契. (2001). 哲学大辞典. 上海: 上海辞书出版社.
[7]	冯友梅, 李艺. (2019). 布鲁姆教育目标分类学批判. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),(2),63−72.
[8]	何玲, 黎加厚. (2005). 促进学生深度学习. 计算机教与学,(5),29−30.
[9]	康德. (1963). 康德哲学原著选读(华特生译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
[10]	斯密. (2000). 康德《纯粹理性批判》解义(韦卓民译). 武汉: 华中师范大学出版社.
[11]	黄浩森, 张昌义. (1990). 知识与思维. 福建: 福建教育出版社.
[12]	黄勇. (2010). 理解他者: 戴维森的“第一人称的权威”. 哲学分析,(3),19−36.
[13]	蒋京川. (2005). 皮亚杰晚年的“新理论”及其思考. 心理科学进展,(3),366−377.
[14]	蒋开天. (2014). 图式特质论——基于康德、皮亚杰图式学说的历史考察. 中南大学学报(社会科学版),(2),44−50. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-3104.2014.02.009
[15]	江丕权, 李越. (2004). 关于大学生的思维训练. 清华大学教育研究,(4),116−120. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4519.2004.04.020
[16]	李其维, 弗内歇. (2000). 皮亚杰发生认识论若干问题再思考. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),(5),3−10.
[17]	李艺, 钟柏昌. (2015). 谈“核心素养”. 教育研究,(9),17−23.
[18]	李艺. (2019). 谈一篇论文意义上理论研究的逻辑之“真”——兼及“论证”与“议论”的分析. 现代远程教育研究,(4),26−36. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5195.2019.04.004
[19]	李艺, 冯友梅. (2018). 支持素养教育的“全人发展”教育目标描述模型设计——基于皮亚杰发生认识论哲学内核的演绎. 电化教育研究,(12),5−12.
[20]	刘海云, 伍庆华, 肖爱娇. (2013). 思维导图教学法在高校课堂教学中的应用研究. 中国成人教育,(21),155−156.
[21]	皮亚杰. (1981a). 发生认识论原理(王宪钿译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
[22]	皮亚杰. (1981b). 儿童心理学(吴福元译). 北京: 商务出版社.
[23]	皮亚杰. (1989). 生物学与认识(尚新建, 等译). 北京: 三联书店.
[24]	任丹凤. (2003). 论教材的知识结构. 课程. 教材. 教法,(2),5−8.
[25]	任友群. (2002). 建构主义学习理论的哲学社会学源流. 全球教育展望,(1),15−19.
[26]	谭和平. (2005). 从发生认识论看思维训练. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),(3),68−73.
[27]	万文涛. (2004). 论专业化教师的知识结构. 教育研究,(9),17−19.
[28]	汪凤严, 燕良轼, 郑红. (2017). 教育心理学新编. 广州: 暨南大学出版社.
[29]	王汉松. (2000). 布卢姆认知领域教育目标分类理论评析. 南京师大学报(社会科学版),(3),65−71.
[30]	王锡伟. (2002). 休谟与皮亚杰的因果观. 学海,(5),94−97. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-9790.2002.05.020
[31]	熊哲宏. (2000). 皮亚杰发生认识论的康德哲学框架. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),(3),55−65.
[32]	熊哲宏. (2002). 皮亚杰理论与康德先天范畴体系研究. 武汉: 华中师范大学出版社.
[33]	殷常鸿, 张义兵, 李艺, 高伟. (2019). “皮亚杰-比格斯”深度学习评价模型构建. 电化教育研究,(7),21−28.
[34]	张春莉, 高民. (1996). 布卢姆认知领域教育目标分类学在中国十年的回顾与反思. 华东师范大学学报: 教育科学版,(1),57−70.
[35]	张刚要, 李艺. (2019). 论皮亚杰发生认识论的“哲学性”. 电化教育研究,(8),15−21.
[36]	张乐. (2015). 学生课堂学习行为的发生学研究. 重庆: 西南大学.
[37]	章苗定. (1996). 从康德的先验论到皮亚杰的发生认识论—试论主体自身因素在认识中的作用. 上海大学学报: 社会科学版,(3),96−100.
[38]	张义兵, 孙俊梅, 木塔里甫. (2018). 基于知识建构的同伴互评教学实践研究. 电化教育研究,(7),108−113.
[39]	赵国庆. (2012). 概念图、思维导图教学应用若干重要问题的探讨. 电化教育研究,(5),78−84.
[40]	赵立航, 郭景萍. (1984). 发生认识论与传统认识论. 求索,(6),65−69.
[41]	赵姝, 赵国庆, 吴亚滨, 徐宁仪. (2012). 思维训练: 技术有效促进学习的催化剂. 现代远程教育研究,(4),28−34. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5195.2012.04.005
[42]	赵耸婷. (2001). 建构主义: 一种后结构主义学习理论. 南通师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),(2),117−121.
[43]	钟志贤. (2006). 建构主义学习理论与教学设计. 电化教育研究,(5),10−16.
[44]	Biggs, J. (1989). Towards a model of school-based curriculum development and assessment using the solo taxonomy. Australian Journal of Education, (2), 151−163.
[45]	Fischer, K. W., & J Paré-Blagoev (2000). From individual differences to dynamic pathways of development. Child Development, 71(4), 850−853. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00192
[46]	Gruber, H., Voneche, J. (1977). The Essential Piaget. New York: Basic Books.
[47]	Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1994). Précis of beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(4), 693−745.
[48]	Kitchener, R. F (1981). The nature and scope of genetic epistemology. Philosophy of Science, 48(3), 400−415. doi: 10.1086/289007
[49]	Marton F., Saljo R (1976). On qualitative differences in learning II: outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Education Psychology, (46), 115−127.
[50]	Pascual-Leone, J. (2000). Is the French Connection Neo-Piagetian? Not nearly enough. Child Development, 71(4), 843−845. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00190
[51]	Tsou, J. Y (2006). Genetic epistemology and Piaget’s philosophy of science: Piaget vs. Kuhn on scientific progress. Theory & Psychology, (2), 203−224.