建构主义、杜威和学术指导。

Kurt Xyst
{"title":"建构主义、杜威和学术指导。","authors":"Kurt Xyst","doi":"10.12930/NACADA-14-027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many published scholars argue for constructivism as a basis for academic advising theory. However, few have discussed the commensurate ontological assumptions of constructivist thinking. Potential problems with the metaphysical view of the student in contemporary academic advising may be attributable to constructivism. John Dewey's critique of dualism suggests that although constructivism proves fruitful for practice, academic advisors may need to reexamine the use of it to avoid creation of educationally harmful conditions for students. They can begin this investigation by looking at the work of John Dewey and by reconsidering their own assumptions about knowing and learning.","PeriodicalId":158925,"journal":{"name":"NACADA Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constructivism, Dewey, and Academic Advising.\",\"authors\":\"Kurt Xyst\",\"doi\":\"10.12930/NACADA-14-027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many published scholars argue for constructivism as a basis for academic advising theory. However, few have discussed the commensurate ontological assumptions of constructivist thinking. Potential problems with the metaphysical view of the student in contemporary academic advising may be attributable to constructivism. John Dewey's critique of dualism suggests that although constructivism proves fruitful for practice, academic advisors may need to reexamine the use of it to avoid creation of educationally harmful conditions for students. They can begin this investigation by looking at the work of John Dewey and by reconsidering their own assumptions about knowing and learning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":158925,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NACADA Journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NACADA Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-14-027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NACADA Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-14-027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

许多发表文章的学者主张将建构主义作为学术指导理论的基础。然而,很少有人讨论建构主义思维的相称本体论假设。当代学术指导中学生形而上学观点的潜在问题可能归因于建构主义。约翰·杜威对二元论的批判表明,尽管建构主义在实践中证明是卓有成效的,但学术顾问可能需要重新审视它的使用,以避免为学生创造教育上有害的条件。他们可以通过阅读约翰·杜威的作品,并重新考虑他们自己对认识和学习的假设来开始这一调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Constructivism, Dewey, and Academic Advising.
Many published scholars argue for constructivism as a basis for academic advising theory. However, few have discussed the commensurate ontological assumptions of constructivist thinking. Potential problems with the metaphysical view of the student in contemporary academic advising may be attributable to constructivism. John Dewey's critique of dualism suggests that although constructivism proves fruitful for practice, academic advisors may need to reexamine the use of it to avoid creation of educationally harmful conditions for students. They can begin this investigation by looking at the work of John Dewey and by reconsidering their own assumptions about knowing and learning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信