Theo Hug

My response starts with some remarks on the fuzzy disciplinary boundaries of educational research. The aim is to elucidate the scope and the complexity of conceptual clarifications at the crossroads of learning, Bildung, 4E cognition and enactive education. The discussion of critical questions and issues of criticism results in cautiously optimistic perspectives and a vote for meta-critical and polylogical research in order to contribute to the development of fruitful and relevant indications for future-oriented forms of education.

Context: References to education in the 21st century often follow popular framings of education focusing on “skilling” and self-regulated learning without reflecting education as a key concept in educational research. Inter- and transdisciplinary efforts at the seams of 4E cognition and educational research can offer mutual benefits and enhanced perspectives for conceptualizing and designing educational arrangements open to the future. Problem: Education and educational research are contested fields. Depending on disciplinary backgrounds and entanglements of educational research and policy, different operative fictions of, for example, optimization, emancipation, calculable output, or freedom of personality development play a role. I highlight some challenges and often neglected contexts at the crossroads of learning and education as Bildung. Method: I summarize some historical background regarding education, educationability (Bildsamkeit) and the relevance of educationalization formulas. Furthermore, I consider a number of issues related to learnification, literacification, datafication and the impact of the global education industry. A critical analysis shows that some challenges have been undervalued in the discourses at the crossroads of education and 4E cognition, so far. Results: As for the future of 4E cognition research, perspectives are not necessarily limited to quantitative measurement, calculability, formalization and computational models of cognition. Further clarification should include relations of measurable and non-measurable dimensions of education as well as humanist and post-humanist assumptions of learning subjects. Implications: Insights are beneficial for educational researchers and specialists from different disciplines who want to overcome reductionist or lopsided perspectives regarding the future of education. Constructivist content: 4E cognition considering extracranial processes is compatible with radical constructivism and relevant to educational research and pedagogical practice. However, considering the relevance of entanglements of micro-, meso - and macro-levels in education, the increasing impact of the global education industry and contemporary challenges of various critical ecologies, enhanced perspectives of constructivism that are informed by Siegfried J. Schmidt’s media-cultural constructivism and Kersten Reich’s interactive constructivism provide broader prospects for conceptualizing and designing education in the 21st century.

Purpose: So far, the work of Josef Mitterer has not been widely recognized in philosophy of education, even though it offers many points of contact not only for epistemological and methodological questions but also for empirical and educational issues. Among these points of contact there is an outstanding sentence (see motto), which can be taken as a starting point for conceptual considerations in philosophy of education. The article takes this sentence as a hub for some corresponding investigations. Method: The article seeks to make progress in these investigations through reflecting on Mitterer's sentence in ten steps, beginning with translational aspects and ending with questions of power relations and inconsistency. The arguments are made through (a) reference to concepts that are currently being discussed in philosophy of education and constructivist discourses, (b) through contrasting various conceptualizations, and (c) through discussion of selected examples. Findings: The article proposes a translation of Mitterer's sentence that may be from Mitterer. It points out several similarities with and differences to positions related to (presumed) positions of Mitterer. Furthermore, it shows innovative options for argumentations in educational philosophy on that basis. Benefits: The contribution sounds out some interfaces between Mitterer's philosophy and current debates in philosophy of education. It contributes to differentiated understandings of Mitterer's sentence and it opens up a new field of discourse

Open peer commentary on the article “Amusement, Delight, and Whimsy: Humor Has Its Reasons that Reason Cannot Ignore” by Edith K. Ackermann. Upshot: Ackermann’s target article strikes a chord by thinking together oblique and rational aspects of knowing in constructivism. Her target article points out uses of humor and various ways of making sense of our experience that have been underestimated in constructivist discourse. While I can agree on the main lines of her argument, I want to argue for further differentiation and clarification with respect to some historic and systematic aspects

Purpose: The article deals with constructivism and media in two respects: on a general level with some aspects of the role of media in constructivism, and in particular with the role of constructivism in media socialization studies. Context : Media have been taken up as a topic in some parts of constructivist discourses. While some of the authors treat media as a subject of inquiry like other fields to which they are related -- economics, society, or psychotherapy -- others recognize constitutional aspects of media, too. Approach: The article focuses on various discourse threads in the German-language literature over the last decade. Various constructivist conceptions and assumptions are taken into consideration with a view to surveying their role in media socialization studies. The article will initially justify the need for reflecting on issues of modelling mediality and constructivity and their relation to each other. It points out several conceptual similarities and differences within constructivism and shows their relevance to media socialization studies. Furthermore, it provides an outline of the respective arguments and an introduction to interfaces of constructivism and media socialization. Findings: In line with different constructivist concepts, the fields of investigation are rather scattered and authors only partly pay attention to each other. This article puts some characteristics and capabilities of constructivist discourses up for debate with regard to selected aspects of media socialization. We find that contemporary media socialization studies do not refer to a single definition of media socialization or constructivism. Since the concepts discussed are published in German, it may also be seen as a benefit that they are made accessible to a wider audience.

Excerpt: There is the difficulty in allowing for personal items when focussing on academic interests and in allowing for rational aspects when focussing on personal items for someone who has had the chance to get to know Ernst personally. At least for me the search for apposite words in English is not easy in view of the successful interplay between his philosophical ideas, his handling of everyday problems of life and his ability to cope with difficult situations. But let's give it a try and look back at one of the most striking experiences we have had together

Context: It is beyond doubt that RC has received a great deal of attention in educational studies and learning theory. But overall, the current situation seems to be rather ambivalent in view of the blurring of the various strands in constructivist discourses and the different ways of distinguishing and foregrounding constructivist positions. Correspondingly, there is a wide range of claims, from the claim that (radical) constructivism represents a mainstream endeavor to attributions of its being outdated, self-refuting or irrelevant. Purpose: The paper seeks to sound out the ambivalent situation of (radical) constructivism between “all” and “nothing” by examples of attributions of meaning to constructivist positions in academic everyday life and by challenging both prevalent criticisms of systemic-constructivist pedagogy and widespread broad classifications in learning theory. Method: The article critically reflects on (1) one-sentence “destructions” of constructivist positions, (2) Pongratz’s criticism of systemic-constructivist pedagogy, and (3) the threefold classification of the world of learning, i.e., behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Results: Both the current criticism of constructivism as a mainstream endeavor and evolutionary suggestions provided by the threefold classification are criticized. Although some constructivist concepts and distinctions are widely accepted today, often these achievements are not recognized as being rooted in constructivist discourses. Implications: As far as mainstreaming constructivism might be related to power politics, selling the “real thing,” and joining the ranks of truth-oriented Isms, it would not appear to be a desirable endeavor for those who rely on viability, circular foundations, relativist philosophy, and relationalist approaches. Nevertheless, clarifications of power relations and the interplay between constructivist analyses of politics and the politics of constructivism might contribute to overcoming the diffuse popularity of constructivist thought towards a better understanding of constructivist contributions to solution oriented, meaningful ways of dealing with urgent problems