This paper reports a study on conceptions of assessment held by students and instructors. The conceptions of assessment are considered to be one of the four interrelated sets of conceptions which together constitute the conception of education. The three other sets are the conceptions of (1) knowledge, (2) learning, and (3) instruction. Conceptions of knowledge were measured using an adapted version of the Epistemic Beliefs Questionnaire (EBQ). Conceptions of learning and instruction were measured with the Teaching and Learning Conceptions Questionnaire (TLCQ) developed by Elliott (2002)1, and Chan (2004)2. Since no instrument was available to measure conceptions of assessment, an experimental Conceptions of Assessment Scale (CAS) was developed and tested. Students filled out a 32-item forced-choice version, while instructors filled out a 25-item version in a four-point rating format. On all three instruments a dichotomy was created to distinguish subjects with ‘traditional’ conceptions from the ones with more ‘constructivist’ views. Results indicate that students and instructors hold different conceptions of assessment. Students have more traditional conceptions of assessment than instructors. With regard to conceptions of knowledge, students are more traditional than instructors. The conceptions of teaching and learning also show students to be more traditional than instructors. With respect to the congruency of conceptions of education, students seem to be equally (in) consistent as the instructors. An important implication of the present study is to pay more attention to the alignment between the educational philosophy of an institute and the conceptions of education held by its students and instructors.

Purpose: When reviewing the prospectus of mainstream universities that offer psychology majors, one would be hard-pressed to find any cybernetic approaches included in their course material. This is an unfortunate observation as most psychological problems arise in a relational context. Reasons for this status quo are presented. The purpose of this paper is to reduce obstacles for prospective learners in cybernetic psychology, with the hope that cybernetic psychology may be assimilated and seen as an equal footing paradigm in mainstream psychology teachings. Design/methodology/approach – A popular cybernetics web site is often used by students who are learning cybernetic psychology. Using the responses from students who frequent the online resource, solutions are presented based on the questions that students have asked the author of the site. Findings: Students are taught different therapy paradigms in terms of models; the psychodynamic model, the medical model, the person-centred model; the systems model and so forth. Their position to the model is external and they can critically evaluate the different models and apply each model in an interpretation and analysis of various psychology case studies. Cybernetic psychology becomes problematic when that line of thinking is used. Practical implications: Cybernetic psychology stands as an ethical choice for therapy. Reducing the boundaries for cybernetic therapies to be assimilated in the mainstream context, especially if offered by universities as an equal footing paradigm, which would be in keeping with the WHO’s call for responsible ethical therapy interventions. Originality/value – There is limited information on how to perform cybernetic psychology. This is understandable owing to the nature of cybernetics; however, reliable and stable approaches should still be available for students who are new to this epistemology. There needs to be an entering point into this way of thinking so that cybernetic psychology remains accessible to newcomers.

Key words: Psychology, cybernetics, model, second-order cybernetics, systems, therapy

Upshot: University engineering qualifications are accredited according to various international accords that are perceived as a restrictive factor in curricula redesign. I argue that this may not be the case owing to the discipline-independent wide-ranging content that may populate the qualifications. Also, I point out that the educator’s teaching style is their choice and that educators may act as agents of change bringing ethical changes to their curricula. Finally, I question the role of the teacher and its future relevance in competition with artificial intelligence.

The problem of double contingency and its accompanying parable of the black boxes informs Luhmann’s conception of meaning and frequently provides illustration at critical junctures. In life, (we) ‘psychic systems’ and (societies) ‘social systems’ are constantly faced with situations that require choices. Our meanings develop from those choices. Each choice that we make is an element of our meaning. Autopoiesis forms the background of Luhmann’s theory. Psychic and social autopoietic systems live by constantly maintaining their reproduction as a closed system. At the same time, they constantly interact with their environment by incorporating elements from it and releasing unneeded elements back into it. In this process, what remains the same is the reproductive process, which incorporates those elements that foster its life and evolution. Interpenetration describes how closed autopoietic systems come to share meaning and come to cooperatre and understand each other.

In this article I will outline the basic theoretical assumptions of two examples of the confederative and the integrative views of the living – respectively Ganti’s Chemoton theory and Maturana and Varela’s autopoietic theory – by showing that they are both consistent perspectives, but they differ in the accounts they make of the role of organization in biological systems. In doing so I will also put into evidence how the choice between these two theoretical frameworks is strictly connected to the problem of structure and function in living organisms and entails different strategies of investigation.

Key words: biological autonomy, organization, autopoiesis, Chemoton theory

Excerpt: I bridge the gap between theoretical contemplation and empirical research with a model and simulation of autopoietic organizational knowledge, learning, and memory. “Like voltage, current, and resistance, the terms knowledge, learning, and memory must be defined in terms of each other” (Spender, 1996, p. 75). Together, then, these terms characterize the fundamental dialectic between structures and dynamics of organizations. The model draws heavily on social systems theory, thereby complementing autopoietic organization theory. The simulation stands in the tradition of mathematical approaches to organizational structures and dynamics such as Cohen, March, and Olsen’s (1972) Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice, March’s (1991) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, Carley’s (1992) Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover, to name but a few. While the model is first and foremost a mathematical conceptualization of the theory at hand, the simulation is a scientific inquiry “halfway between theory and experiment” (Waldrop, 1992, p. 63), a blend of deduction and induction. It is not an end in itself, however, but a means of manipulating the structures and dynamics of organizations in order to observe corresponding organizational behaviors. Therefore, the simulation findings allow for conclusions which are not necessarily evident from the theory and model alone. In closing, I discuss some of the findings in terms of future theoretical contemplation and empirical research.

Excerpt: The Origin of Humanness, written in the early 1990s, brings together two strands of research: Maturana Romesin’s research into the origin of humanness and Verden-Zöller’s research into the rise of self-consciousness in the child during early mother-child play relations. The authors’ core claim is that the human species has evolved by conserving love as a fundamental domain of cooperation expressed through the basic emotions or moods of mutual respect, care, acceptance and trust (Homo sapiens-amans) rather than competition and aggression (Homo sapiens aggressans or arrogance). In this, they do not declare an ethical imperative, but rather situate ethics in biology, since, in their view, a responsible concern for the well-being of the other (human, species, biosphere, etc.) arises naturally from a manner of living in the biology of love. This is what they propose as a way for conserving the existence of social human beings (and what they call “social consciousness”) and for countering the dominant culture of domination, submission or indifference in Western society. Ethics, in this sense, is a choice of emotioning on an individual basis that in relation to a social community defines how a particular manner of living is to be conserved over the coming generations.

Open peer commentary on the article “Elementary Students’ Construction of Geometric Transformation Reasoning in a Dynamic Animation Environment” by Alan Maloney. Upshot: This commentary assumes a constructionist perspective to discuss the choice of methods, conclusions and design goals that Panorkou and Maloney make in their study of students’ activities with the Graph ’n Glyphs microworld.

Excerpt: The psychology of personality is now dominated by the psychometric tradition of individual dif-ferences: how people differ along a number of specified dimensions. This, of course, is an objec-tivist approach that takes an external perspective on the person. Personal construct psychology (PCP) is a phenomenological approach to the person that focuses instead on making sense of people by attempting to understand the world from their individual perspectives.

Key words: personality, personal construct, constructivism, pragmatism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, choice, agency

Summary: Some of the most authoritative names from the constructivist community have been called on to contribute to this volume, coherent with the editors’ choice to start from a broad definition of psychological constructivism, and to maintain its various expressions and derivations… It seems clear that the editors strongly recommended the authors to include many examples and clinical cases to demonstrate with actual facts the applicability of the epistemological assumptions of constructivism to clinical practice. In my opinion, in addition to reaching this target, this work provides numerous suggestions to those clinicians already conscious of the efficacy of the therapeutic applications of constructivism.