| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Igizngied0","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ2Ӻ","startOffset":905,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ3Ӻ","endOffset":518°Ӻ,"quote":"” For the general public, given Piaget’s interest in children, genetic epistemology is merely a somewhat abstract theory for explaining cognitive development – an offshoot of child psychology.\nThis initial misunderstanding was compounded when Piaget’s term “constructivism” began to be discussed in educational circles. It gave rise to statements such as: “It’s obvious, after all, the children don’t simply swallow all adult knowledge whole, they have to construct it!.” Even today, a good many authors are convinced that they are constructivists, yet they have never put traditional epistemology in question. It was their naive interpretation that prompted me to add the qualifier “radical” to constructivism.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210413197432160228862":^°°,^"jQuery3210413197432160228862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Innovationsdiskurs2","data_creacio":1568995017848°
|
