Application of Constructivist and Neo-Liberal Theories - Essay Example

Application of constructivist and neo-liberal theories PART ONE Introduction Constructivist theory refers to the process by which individuals assimilate and incorporate new experiences into the already existent frameworks, as a result of being realigned to the specific internal representations. However, the change may also result from the failure to alter faulty comprehensions of a concept. This theory, thus, relates to the process by which people are able to accommodate the process by which the mental representation can be reframed so as to fit the new experiences (Glasersfel 147-152). The constructivist theory was formalized by Jean Piaget, but most of the work in relation to the application of the theory are attributed to Jerome Bruner, who noted that the theoretical framework of the theory was that learning could be perceived as an active and continuous process. As such, learners involved in the process would develop new ideas based on their past and present knowledge. The basic image of the constructivist theory is that learners are able to discover themselves based on this theory and select and transform information. Subsequently, the theory makes it possible for learners to construct hypotheses out of the contexts of the theory and make constructive decisions based on the cognitive structure of the provided information. The cognitive structure in this sense provides individuals with the experiences required to proceed with the precepts of information obtained (Kincheloe 268-273). The theory, from the basis of constructivists, is founded on the precepts of constructivism, which is concerned with the idea of constructing knowledge for personal gain. As such, its application may take on varied forms. For instance, some constructivists may perceive the theory from the perspective that it relates to knowledge that is not independent; hence, the construction of which will relate to the learner’s experience. This view has often been adopted by the constructivists founded on the argument that the acceptance of constructivist theory would imply the acceptance of the realistic and plutonic views. As such, the knower of a particular knowledge cannot be independent of the knowledge they claim to know. Subsequently, the application of this theory may be explained from the perspective that the understanding of the aspects of knowledge founded on the constructivist theory is based on the social and personal construction of meaning out of a sensation, and applying that knowledge in a manner that would determine the order for the fabrication of the knowledge. Therefore, this theory can be explained to entirely depend upon the study and application of cognition as a basis for forming its general framework. Much of the constructivist theory is based on the development of a person cognitively; hence, this would be considered as the primary framework for the development of the theory. In other contexts, a constructivist or positivist constructivist would apply this theory through the persistent encouragement of self and individuals near him to assess how the daily activities they engage with aid them in the gaining of constructivist understanding. This can be achieved through a constant questioning of oneself and applied strategies for the gaining of knowledge required to become experts; thus, providing one with the ever-broadened tools for learning. As a person continues to reflect upon their experiences, they tend to gain additional skills and knowledge that enhances their abilities and integration of new information. Among the general prescriptions of the constructivist theory is that being founded on the basis of making meaning to aspects, individuals would always be required to develop their own understandings of aspects, and improve on this based on the daily interactions that they engage in with other personalities who could be informed of the field of study. Subsequently, the theory is modelled around the understanding and comprehension of the forms of knowledge that one gets in contact with (Kincheloe 353-357). In most instances, the impression built is that the psychological and social approaches to constructivism are aspects constructed on the minds of people. However, in other aspects, the construction of such knowledge may be based on other aspects such as the political, social, and economic power gained by an individual within a particular position. Finally, as far as the provision of instruction is concerned within the realms of this theory, instructors are required to encourage students to ensure that the discoveries they make of new aspects of knowledge be done by themselves. This will enable the development of an active dialog between the instructor and learner to the extent that there will be easier translation of learned information form one format to another (Nye 31-36). Understanding and comprehending the theory The best way to understand this theory would be through the understanding and comprehending its application to the world of policy makers. Ideally, the policy makers would be interested with the impact the theory can have on the world policy issues. As such, constructivist theory may be applied in the championing for an environmental change or for the adoption of general policies by the policy makers. In such an instance, the recommended precept is for the policy maker to ground their decisions on the additional value and knowledge that will be acquired from the project as a result of incorporating the aspects of knowledge acquisitions. Policy makers in education should be made to realize that the adopted policies should be centered on the needs of the learners. This can be based on the three mechanisms of assimilation of knowledge, accommodation of new aspects, and the determination of the equilibrium point based on the obtained cognitive stability in an individual (Glasersfeld 31-36). Difference between constructivism and realism Often, there may be the tendency to confuse realism and constructivism. While both terms are commonly used in alternation of aspects, their meanings may have different interpretations. For instance, the constructivist theory is probably one of the hardest to define and explain because at its core lies the exchange of ideas and not goods. As such, it becomes hard to comprehend the form of required aspect as would be the case with realism in which the prospect is known in certainty (Lesh & Helen 201-205). Subsequently, constructivism may take a person a long duration of time to learn, while with realism, the major factor is for one to find a basis of reasoning and make judgments based on that aspect. Constructivist theory also differs from realism in that it requires an extensive building of knowledge. Realism, on the other hand, may not require extensive building of knowledge as it is determined by the nature of information that one needs to relate to. Therefore, I would easily relate to constructivism since it is informed thinking, which can also result in the formation of informed reasoning. This is against the dangers of making decisions based on realism, since one is prone to make decisions not based on the presented facts, but on the realistic assessments of what they perceive is factual, which may not be the case. PART TWO Introduction Neo-liberalism may be referred to the period of resurgence of ideas that were associated with the laissez-faire period of economic liberalism. The advocates of neo-liberalism have always supported aspects of free trade, extensive economic liberalization, and reduced government spending. Neo-liberal institutionalism is a modern form of theory of neo-liberalism that has born a lot of debate on the relations between the two terms, among scholars of the two schools of thought. The most common and modern theory associated with this aspect is the wide theoretical aspect of international relations theory that holds on the claim that the international organizations and institutions such as NATO, European Union and United Nations can enhance the cooperation between states through the extension of ideals such as those of idealism theory. Founded on the precepts of institutional liberalism that is rationalistic and utilitarian, the theory of international relations seeks to treat nations as rational and independent actors in international politics; hence, cannot be enforced with hierarchical systems. Thus, the presentation of the fact that power needs to be diversified across nations. Diffusion and diversification of power Modernists’ argument on the diffusion and diversification of power is based on the analysis of the balance of power theory that predicts that due to the rapid changes that take place in the realms of international relations, no state should try to exercise its authority over another state based on political power. This explains the concept of power diversification and diffusion so that no country is considered as a superpower. The basic image for this is that the attainment of a balancing point in international relations would advance the balance, hence, functionality of power systems that defines the formation of alliances among nations, irrespective of their history, religion, and values. Therefore, a case study on the power owned by the US at the present moment is likely to show that the dominance in global politics and other affairs related to economy, trade, health among others will decline. In fact, there is much evidence to support this argument owing to the infiltration of socialist ideologies mostly fronted by China in areas formerly regarded as under the capitalists’ influence of the US. Modernists’ use of these two terms is aimed at controlling the misuse of political and economic power by a nation to attempt to conquer another region. The likelihood of such a scenario would be the provocation of counterbalancing acts by the other nations. Largely, the use of these terms is also aimed at eradicating instances of global dominance of a nation on the affairs of another sovereign nation. Modernist’s view of the general prospects for world peace In seeking to understand the prospects of peace and security, particularly from the standpoint of US, it is imperative to recognize the impact of political modernism to current affairs. This school of philosophy (political modernism) mainly emphasizes on the significance of globalization on international relations. Modernists believe that the societal survival and advancements, as well as the maximization of peace, is based on the interdependence among various states (Legro 98-102). As such, their view or the future is one which is peaceful and secure only if nations globally cooperate globally, and adhere to interdependence based on the institutionalization. In another context, a modernist would seek for the recognition of non-state actors such as diseases threats, terrorists groups, and international organizations as part of the international system. The perception is that they are great threats to global peace and security; hence, the need for their recognition for peace and security to be attained in the US and around the world. Over the next few years, modernists would appreciate the power outside of economic, social, environmental, financial, and technological (Trachtenberg 123-128). With regards to treaties, world organizations, trade agreements, and environmental organizations, modernists believe that the exertion of constraints on these aspects would result in the development of international law that is essential for the establishment and enhancement of global peace and security. Modernists also perceive the US as faltering in its global perceptions, an indication that the talks on global cooperation and modern international institutions will yield brighter futures for the US (Ikenberry 258-263). An examination of the global discernments and considerations for the criticisms of the US are considered by modernists as crucial to the conducting of fair and just analysis of the global politics. Traditional or realist US perspectives require redefinition in a number of ways, especially on the perception of national interests. Realists acknowledge that the world is as it is, but do not like it; hence, while recognizing the presence of cooperation, they do not perceive it as a means of security and survival. This should be a core point of redefinition. Realists also believe that peace and security can be brought about by war, which they consider as the central issue in international politics (Nye & David 76-82). Works Cited Glasersfeld, Ernst . Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London: Falmer Press, 2000. Internet resource. Glasersfeld, Ernst . Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education. New York: Kluwer Academic, 2002. Internet resource. Ikenberry, G J. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2011. Print. Kincheloe, Joe L. Critical Constructivism: Primer. New York, NY [u.a.: Lang, 2005. Print. Lesh, Richard A, and Helen M. Doerr. Beyond Constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning, and Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. Print. Legro, Jeffrey W. Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order. Ithaca, NY [u.a.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2007. Print. Nye, Joseph S. Understanding International Conflicts. Harlow: Longman, 2008. Print. Nye, Joseph S, and David A. Welch. Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to Theory and History. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson, 2013. Print. Trachtenberg, Marc. The Cold War and After: History, Theory, and the Logic of International Politics. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2012. Print. Read More