Purpose: My first purpose is to present an epistemological and ideological analysis of various conceptions of the mind–culture relationship and to state why it is fruitless to set them against each other. My second purpose is to answer the following two questions within the framework of cultural cognitive development: (1) How do I understand and explain the interaction between two cultural actors, one of whom is myself? (2) How do I model cultural intersubjectivity? Addressing these two aims, I want to make the nature of observer participation explicit to myself, then to the reader. Design: I describe the personal schemes I use in my cross-cultural research. After defining and comparing different conceptual and methodological instruments, I go on to argue in favor of an experimental methodological approach based on a naturalistic constructivist epistemological framework. Findings: Among the potential ontological and epistemological conceptions related to the human mind, I consciously argue for a naturalistic ontology and a constructivist epistemology. In line with this philosophical view, the knowledge on the cognitive development of children pertaining to different cultures appears as my personal scheme’s production. Such production is a permanent object of debate in the scientific community and in the wider community of studied subjects. Original value: The ideas and concepts developed in the present paper are neither new nor innovative. I relate the conceptual shift from a positivist to a radical constructivist epistemology that was necessary in order for me to be able to study the relationship between culture and children’s cognitive development. Implications: While the present discussion may not be innovative from a radical constructivist point of view, it is so from the point of view of mainstream developmental psychology.

Key words: cross-cultural psychology, cultural psychology, epistemology, ideology, theory, methodology, radical constructivism

Open peer commentary on the article “Plasticity, Granularity and Multiple Contingency - Essentials for Conceiving an Artificial Constructivist Agent” by Manfred Füllsack. Upshot: My commentary contributes to the analysis of the agency-generating process from a constructivist epistemology by briefly reviewing two computational models, not cited by Füllsack, by Randall Beer and Ezequiel Di Paolo, respectively.

There have been debates about the place of religion in science and in what ways knowledge that is produced through religion can aid in the learning and teaching of science. The discord between science and religion is mainly focused on whose knowledge is better in describing and explaining the reality. Constructivist epistemology seems to give some scholars hope in the possibility that the discord between science and religion can be ameliorated and that their expressions of reality can co-exist. In this forum contribution I present some Hindu perspectives to re-interpret how science and Hinduism explain reality. I have used only few Hindu perspectives based on selected Hindu writings, particularly Vedanta, to expand on objectivity and reality. Finally, I recommend that social constructivism may be a better framework in keeping science and religion discord at bay.

Key words: science & religion. reality. constructivism

Upshot: This textbook presents a pedagogical view of science instruction for educators teaching primary or elementary students in formal and informal settings. Its author invites us to voyage with him into the very nature of science as he scaffolds a learner-centered activity-focused approach to individualized science investigation. However, he does so with an imprecise constructivist epistemology and without mentioning von Glasersfeld.

This bachelor thesis has its focus on the theoretical aspects of Radical Constructivism, as well as on the criticism against the theory. The first chapters will discuss the main principles of the theory which have been set by Ernst von Glasersfeld. It will argue the importance of the term “viability” in the radical constructivist epistemology as well. Jean Piaget’s cognitive model, along with his theory of learning will also be examined, as they represent the foundation of radical-constructivist ideas. Afterwards, the dissensions about the position of Radical Constructivism in the academic world will be thematized, where opinions about its representation as either a “tool” or a “paradigm” will be discussed. Furthermore, this thesis deals with the questions of the social aspect in the radical constructivist discourse, where the main differences between the radical and social form of constructivism will be demonstrated. Claims of it representing a solipsism and relativism, while apparently also pleading for a “nowrong- answer-approach”, will be challenged as well. To conclude, this thesis will end with a discussion about the challenges of the practical implementation of the radical constructivist theory in schools.

In this paper, I argue that John Dewey’s analysis of the transaction of organism and environment can be read as an account of the construction processes that lie beneath all human activity. Dewey’s work anticipates, if it does not explicitly articulate, much of what is important and interesting about constructivist epistemology and constructivist pedagogy. The paper is devoted to a reconstruction of the formulation of this transactional constructivism, and to an analysis of its consequences for a constructivist understanding of communication and education. Relevance: The paper is devoted to a reconstruction of the formulation of John Dewey’s transactional constructivism.

Context: Cognitive science, as an interdisciplinary research endeavour, poses challenges for teaching and learning insofar as the integration of various participating disciplines requires a reflective approach, considering and making explicit different epistemological attitudes and hidden assumptions and premises. Only few curricula in cognitive science face this integrative challenge. Problem: The lack of integrative activities might result from different challenges for people involved in truly interdisciplinary efforts, such as discussing issues on a conceptual level, negotiating colliding frameworks or sets of premises, asking profound questions challenging one’s own paradigm, and differences in terminologies, as well as from the “personal” challenge of realising one’s own limits of knowledge and, hence, the need to trust in another person’s expertise. This implies that the proposed curriculum structure provides an “epistemic laboratory”: a space for experiencing and negotiating, as well as constructing different viewpoints in a trustful setting. Approach: A newly-designed interdisciplinary cognitive science curriculum is presented that is based on a constructivist epistemology. We suggest that a careful construction of the learning space is a necessary requirement. The MEi:CogSci curriculum is designed and structured in such a way that enables didactical measures that allow for collaborative construction of meaning by discussing concepts, methods and terminologies and also hidden assumptions. Findings: The experience with four cohorts of students has shown that a truly interdisciplinary approach to cognitive science demands a different attitude towards knowledge as well as towards teaching and learning on both sides: the teacher and the student. The research orientation promotes an understanding of knowledge as something that is actively constructed, rendering the role of the teacher that of a co-learner rather than a transmitter of knowledge, thereby also changing the responsibility of students.

Key words: learning space, interdisciplinarity, cognitive science, curriculum design, epistemological reflection, teacher, constructivist pedagogy