This special issue focuses on the theoretical, empirical and practical integrations between embodied cognition theory (EC) and educational science. The key question is: Can EC constitute a new theoretical framework for educational science and practice? The papers of the special issue support the efforts of those interested in the role of EC in education and in the epistemological convergence of EC and educational science. They deal with a variety of relevant topics in education and offer a focus on the role of the body and embodied experience in learning and educational settings. In conclusion, some further topics are suggested that will need to be investigated in the future, such as a critical evaluation of the possibility for an epistemological alliance between educational theory and embodied cognition, and the contribution that enactive cognition can provide to educational systems, organizations, institutions and policies.

Key words: embodied cognition, education, educational theory, phenomenology, phenomenological pedagogy.

In the following I try to work out an aspect of the embodied experience that is circumscribed by the concept of negativity. The experience of the lived body is in a phenomenological perspective based on withdrawal and passive or pathic experiences (Straus 1956), which refer to the dependence, vulnerability and interweaving with others. This negativity of the experience of the body is described in terms of practicing, learning and relearning (1), space and spatial experience (2), Bildung and communication in the context of embodiment (3) and social and democratic learning (4). An ontological, experiential and socio-communicative negativity is distinguished. The learning experience as presented with Günther Buck is experience driven by negativity, which makes learning as experience and relearning possible. Space and spatiality are then presented as spaces of orientation, situation and responsiveness, and linked to the learning experience from the perspective of negativity. In the third part of the chapter follows a digression to Humboldt’s educational theory, which is re-read from the perspective of embodiment. On this basis, I try to explore with Eugen Fink possibilities of democratic education in the context of an intergenerational questioning and a counseling community.

Excerpt: The label “constructivism” is ubiquitous and sometimes insidious and certainly means different things to dissimilar people. To explain why I am not a constructivist, we must start by attempting to clarify the term and analyze its scope. Constructivism is a very broad field: in the educational sector alone (not including the philosophical nor the social areas) there are as many as 25 different varieties. As one constructivist has remarked, “…the term ‘constructivism’ appears to be fashionable, mostly used loosely with no clear definition of the term, and is used without clear links to an epistemological base” (Featherston, 1997). Michael Matthews says that while there are “…countless thousands of constructivist articles, it is rare to find ones with fully worked out epistemology, learning theory, educational theory, or ethical and political positions” (Matthews, 2000).

Context: The paper utilizes a conceptual analysis to examine the development of abstract conceptual structures in mathematical problem solving. In so doing, we address two questions: 1. How have the ideas of RC influenced our own educational theory? and 2. How has our application of the ideas of RC helped to improve our understanding of the connection between teaching practice and students’ learning processes? Problem: The paper documents how Ernst von Glasersfeld’s view of mental representation can be illustrated in the context of mathematical problem solving and used to explain the development of conceptual structure in mathematical problem solving. We focus on how acts of mental re‑presentation play a vital role in the gradual internalization and interiorization of solution activity. Method: A conceptual analysis of the actions of a college student solving a set of algebra problems was conducted. We focus on the student’s problem solving actions, particularly her emerging and developing reflections about her solution activity. The interview was videotaped and written transcripts of the solver’s verbal responses were prepared. Results: The analysis of the solver’s solution activity focused on identifying and describing her cognitive actions in resolving genuinely problematic situations that she faced while solving the tasks. The results of the analysis included a description of the increasingly abstract levels of conceptual knowledge demonstrated by the solver. Implications: The results suggest a framework for an explanation of problem solving that is activity-based, and consistent with von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivist view of knowledge. The impact of von Glasersfeld’s ideas in mathematics education is discussed.

Key words: Mathematics education, mental representation, problem solving, mathematics learning

In the field of education we usually find a wide range of differing proposals and approaches under the label of “constructivism.” The author’s thesis is that these differences have two origins. Firstly, the psychological theories these proposals and approaches are based on; and secondly, the particular use of the psychological theories in order to study, understand and explain the teaching learning processes at school. Three common ways or approaching the relationships between psychological knowledge and educational theory and practice are reviewed. All three deserve to be qualified as constructivist and have demonstrated their power in producing extremely useful and valuable implications and applications for schooling. However, two of them only offer a list of explanatory concepts and principles extracted from the developmental and learning theories used. The third, in addition, aims to provide a genuine constructivist explanation of teaching and learning processes at school, through the inclusion of the aforesaid principles and concepts in a whole logical scheme and through their reinterpretation on the basis of nature, functions and characteristics of schooling.

Key words: constructivism, constructivist approaches in education, constructivist theories of development, constructivist theories of learning, constructivist approach to teaching and learning processes

Excerpt: Readers of Complicity are most fortunate to have Jerome Proulx’s paper distinguishing “Maturana and Varela’s Theory of Cognition.… from Constructivist Theories.” This paper sits as a fine companion piece to the Educational Theory paper by Brent Davis and Dennis Sumara (Fall, 2002), distinguishing various types of constructivism and situating complexity as an alternative to constructivism, one focusing neither exclusively nor heavily on the actions of the learner but rather on the interplay of factors or forces within a dynamic, learning situation. Proulx points out that “constructivist” (constructivism) – a word Davis and Sumara note is not part of Jean Piaget’s vocabulary1 (p. 411) – has become, in the hands of Ernst von Glasersfeld, a mantra for teachers dealing with children.

Excerpt: Constructivism is a postmodern theory of knowledge with the potential to transform educational theory. Its present popularity in science and mathematics education, however, is no assurance of its enduring influence on education in general or social studies in particular. One need only recall how Piaget’s work has been previously misunderstood and effectively misused to bolster narrow curricular ends (Egan, 1983). Constructivism could meet a similar fate in our contemporary educational and political climate. The historical tendency of educational psychology in the United States to decontextualize educational theories of their cultural and political basis could trivialize the profoundness of a constructivist theory of knowledge, especially for social studies education. This thesis is further strengthened by the significant and mutually supportive roles played by science and social studies education in supporting a positivist theory of objective realism as the basis of social knowledge. The significance of this analysis lies in the potential that constructivism has for revitalizing education for a democracy. The failure of social studies educators to seize this opportunity would be unfortunate.

Open peer commentary on the article “Roles and Demands in Constructionist Teaching of Computational Thinking in University Mathematics” by Chantal Buteau, Ana Isabel Sacristán & Eric Muller. Abstract: This is a caution to producers and consumers of educational theory and research to recognize places where, in an honest effort to distinguish the core of an idea from the incidental trappings, we inadvertently say more than we would defend scientifically.

In this article, George E. Hein, Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate, Program Evaluation and Research Group, Lesley College, discusses meaning making and constructivism, two often confused terms and how they relate to exhibit development. Hein reviews educational theories to point out that constructivist educational theory elevates meaning making to a central role in learning.

(from the back cover): “Do our thoughts and claims about the world give us rational access to the way the world really is? Can subjective experience ever provide a basis for grasping objective truth? These perennial questions of philosophy reach to the heart of every human endeavor, from education to science to everyday, successful practice. Despite the intuitive and nearly universal appeal of realism, influential thinkers from many fields – including educational theory, psychology, cybernetics, literary criticism, biology, and physics – have long followed the skeptics in denying knowers any kind of reliable bridge to the world. This volume offers the first comprehensive assessment and critique of radical constructivism, a famously skeptical theory of knowledge with a large following across the academic disciplines. Employing a dialogic mode of discourse, the authors have crafted an accessible and concise treatise that both details the solipsistic perils of antirealism and defends an alternative, constructivist realist account of our place as knowers in the larger, constraining world.”