Search

We make the case that there is an urgent need to revitalize the reach of constructivist education into both K-12 public schools and higher education. After considering the current state of the theory and practice of constructivist education, we argue that disparities between theory and practice arise from the divergent conceptual-frameworks constructivist theorists and educators hold. To examine this, core aspects of the approach centering on process, agency, and holism are examined, juxtaposing constructivist theory to ostensibly constructivist classroom practices. Disparities between theory and practice arise from the complexity of constructivist theory and difficulties practitioners face in understanding and using it. Drawing on differences between relational-developmental process accounts versus educators’ more split-mechanistic framings, we suggest entry points to addressing the chasm between theory and common practice, including the need to explicitly consider how the theory has been elaborated and how it has been presented in order to change the educational dialog.

This article examines questions initially raised at a meeting that took place 50 years ago on the topic of the development of knowledge in higher education where Jean Piaget coined the term “transdisciplinarity” and distinguished it from interdisciplinarity. We consider the question of why transdisciplinary scholarship has been so challenging for the field of developmental science. We argue that shifts in the guiding metatheoretical framework of theory and research, away from split-mechanistic paradigms and towards process-relational ones, do not always align with the conceptual frameworks used in educational practice. Using the example considered by Piaget and others at the original conference on higher education and the development of knowledge and also examining the domain of identity development, we find support for ways developmental scholarship has embraced the shift to a relational-developmental metatheory. In contrast, we argue that the relational-developmental paradigm has not been fully adopted by practitioners, with evidence of some using the Cartesian-split-mechanistic paradigm and others using some aspects of the relational-developmental paradigm. We highlight the importance of examining the conceptual frameworks guiding developmental scholarship and practice, suggesting that alignment of conceptual frameworks is an essential ingredient for progress in transdisciplinary scholarship and practice to take place. Conceptualizations at the metatheoretical level condition each and every aspect of theory, research, and practice, giving meaning to both theoretical and empirical activities and guiding practice-based work. Debates often occur at the metatheoretical level, and thus are not open to empirical adjudication. We conclude that metatheoretical alignment between scholars and practitioners is critically important to transdisciplinary efforts in developmental science and therefore more attention to the metatheoretical assumptions of the process-relational paradigm is critical for work with practitioners to succeed.

This paper will look at the evolving relational-developmental paradigm (Overton, 2015; Witherington and Boom, 2020) examining how individual and culture are brought together (or not) in metatheoretical discussions of human development. After a long period of the Cartesian split-mechanistic view of human development, we have increasingly witnessed a shift to more relational views. Moving beyond the separation of mind from body, organism from context, and linear accounts of human development based on additive models (all characteristic of the Cartesian split-mechanistic metatheory), the relational-developmental paradigm embraces three key factors: agency, process, and holism. It is this third area, the holistic view of the organism and environment, that is the central focus of this chapter. We will examine three approaches to individual and environment relations in discussions of holism in developmental science, with a focus on two questions. First, how does each account describe individual, culture, and their relationship to one another (the what); and second, how specifically does that interaction take place (the how)? After reviewing Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model, developmental systems theory, and sociocultural approaches, a discussion will examine how historical changes in the notion of context in neighboring disciplines will help developmental scholars move forward in productive ways as scholars embrace more holistic views of human development.

This article considers the opportunities and challenges of transdisciplinary research on student learning in university settings. Fifty years ago, at a meeting in France that convened experts in education and psychology as well as higher education leaders, the term transdisciplinarity was coined as issues pertaining to the structure of the university and its impact on teaching and learning were considered. We argue that to move beyond what has already been discussed requires added insights from both the learning sciences and developmental sciences. In this article, these two areas are combined with the perspectives of higher education leaders. First, research is considered from the learning sciences on deep learning in relation to university learning and teaching. This body of work illustrates ways students need to be actively engaged in their learning and simultaneously frames teachers as facilitators of students’ constructive efforts rather than disseminators of static knowledge. Second, perspectives from the developmental sciences on processes of development are reviewed, focusing on adolescence and emerging adulthood. Here we highlight the importance of considering developmental systems approaches to aspects of organizing learning at universities in light of extensive research on adolescents and emerging adults. Third, we examine new higher education frameworks that have focused on the importance of student engagement, integration and application of knowledge and the implications of these shifts for organizing higher education learning in more holistic ways, often at the national and transnational levels. In reviewing these three areas, we consider what assumptions are made about the learner, the role of teachers and others in enhancing student learning, and the interaction between learners and contexts where learning takes place. We argue that while progress is being made in undergraduate reform efforts, implementation has been uneven. To deliver on this important work will require further alignment of the sort Jantsch (1972) and Piaget (1972) claimed was central to transdisciplinary approaches, namely aligning these different areas through a systems approach that considers education as a purposeful human activity. This will involve alignment and support from the learning and developmental sciences, as well as local, national and transnational efforts and learning communities to support campus efforts.

Though the research, teaching and civic missions of the modern university have often been considered distinct, changing notions of knowledge and practice suggest increased synergy. This paper develops insights stemming from the learning and developmental sciences on the nature of learning, its relation to practice, and how one can better design environments where learning can flourish. It explores ways the learning science literature could be much more effectively leveraged in study programs for sustainability. Using the proposed requisites of sustainable education programs provided in the typology of the first article of this special issue, we examine whether and how learning science theory and research can contribute to such ongoing efforts.

In this chapter, we examine the changing views of knowledge and practice within the American academy, looking closely at what has been said to be a gap between knowledge and practice. Adopting a longitudinal approach, we first examine changing notions of knowledge and practice in discussions of undergraduate education with a specific focus on what it means to be liberally educated. Next, we shift to examine changing notions of knowledge and practice through an examination of research. Typically, the study of liberal education and the research university is distinct. In this chapter, we will not only review changing views of knowledge and practice in each of these two areas, but also raise the question of whether trends in each area are related and whether these can be tied to new theory and research in the area of the developmental and learning sciences during the same time period. It will be argued that both the conceptual frameworks and strategies guiding the organization of American higher education have yet to fully draw upon emerging perspectives from the development and learning sciences.

Today we are engaged in a national debate about the extent to which liberal education, as currently conceived, leaves college graduates ready to find their place in the modern world. This debate in...

Developmental theorists have struggled with defining the relations among biology, psychology, and sociocultural context, often reducing psychological functions of a person to either biological functioning or the role of sociocultural context - nature or nurture - and considering each area of human development separately. New Perspectives on Human Development addresses fundamental questions of development with a unified approach. It encompasses theory and research on cognitive, social and moral, and language and communicative development, in various stages of life, and explores interdisciplinary perspectives. New Perspectives on Human Development revisits old questions and applies original empirical findings, offering new directions for future research in the field.

An influential claim in the child language literature posits that children use structural cues in the input language to acquire verb meaning ( Gleitman, 1990 ). One such cue is the number of arguments co-occurring with the verb, which provides an indication as to the event type associated with the verb ( Fisher, 1995 ). In some languages however (e.g. Hindi), verb arguments are ellipted relatively freely, subject to certain discourse-pragmatic constraints. In this paper, we address three questions: Is the pervasive argument ellipsis characteristic of adult Hindi also found in Hindi-speaking caregivers’ input ? If so, do children consequently make errors in verb transitivity? How early do children learning a split-ergative language, such as Hindi, exhibit sensitivity to discourse-pragmatic influences on argument realization? We show that there is massive argument ellipsis in caregivers’ input to 3–4 year-olds. However, children acquiring Hindi do not make transitivity errors in their own speech. Nor do they elide arguments randomly. Rather, even at this early age, children appear to be sensitive to discourse-pragmatics in their own spontaneous speech production. These findings in a split-ergative language parallel patterns of argument realization found in children acquiring both nominative-accusative languages (e.g. Korean) and ergative-absolutive languages (e.g. Tzeltal, Inuktitut).

In this article, I consider the question posed by Boesch (2003) in his commentary that appeared in response to issues raised in Coehlo and Figueiredo’s (2003) discussion of intersubjectivity. I begin with an overview of an alternative view of language to the one adopted in Boesch’s question, one that starts from a usage-based approach. Next I move on to consider empirical findings from recent research that examines language and the construction of self. Agreeing with Boesch’s central claim, this article nevertheless offers a distinct view of the connection between language and human development suggesting that language not only provides a tool for the researcher, but also provides a powerful means for the child to come to interpret culturally sanctioned ways of being in the world.

This paper argues for the central role of language practices in children's construction of personhood. It aims to connect prior theorizing that recognized language as central to developmental issues, with more recent discussions about personhood stemming from discursive psychology and linguistic anthropology. Drawing upon longitudinal observations of caregivers and their preschoolers from three language communities, a case is made that the developmental process is more complex than current theorizing suggests. Although caregivers' discourse provides children with a powerful resource for person construction, children's systems do not immediately match those used by their caregivers and undergo significant developments over time.

Tomasello's stimulating review of Goldberg's (1995) book, Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure, raises several themes worthy of discussion. Tomasello suggests numerous reasons why functional and cognitive linguistic approaches in general, and Goldberg's approach in particular, are central to current work in child language. In my commentary I will summarize Tomasello's central claims about what he sees as significant about Goldberg's book, and I will raise the question of whether construction grammar – rather than any other cognitive or functional approach – is worth pursuing. While generally sympathetic to Goldberg's approach, I will discuss two issues that I think are worthy of further consideration in future research.Tomasello highlights three very important reasons why he believes Goldberg's approach makes a significant contribution to child language research. First, he states that construction grammar provides a way of understanding language development as a whole, and not just particular aspects of language development, such as core grammar. Second, Tomasello characterizes Goldberg's approach as noteworthy because it provides a way of relating language development to other domains of human cognition. A third advantage, Tomasello claims, is that construction grammar allows for the view of language development as protracted (e.g. not instantaneous), something Tomasello suggests fits well with his own research findings (see Tomasello, 1992).