«VOLUM E 1 1, N UM B E R 1 I S SN 2 1 6 8 - 0 6 1 2 F L ASH DR I V E I S SN 1 9 4 1 - 9 5 8 9 ON L I N E T h e In s t it ut e f o r Bu s i n e s s an ...»
A “fundational”-coherent axe; in “fundationism” 1) series of basic beliefs exist that are not liable of justification, because they are the base to justify the universe of “not basic” beliefs; 2) the justification has only one direction: it goes from basic beliefs to no basic beliefs. While, “coherentism” adopts one level or status of beliefs and therefore, justification is bidirectional.
GCBF ♦ Vol. 11 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2016 ♦ ISSN 1941-9589 ONLINE & ISSN 2168-0612 USB Flash Drive 162 Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings ♦ Volume 11 ♦ Number 1 The second axe is formed by “internalist-externalist” theories. In internalism the justification depends on internal states such as reflection, reasoning o memory, to which an experimental subject has immediate access; for “externalism” the justification depends on the external state, that starting from own beliefs leads to products of an adequate process of cognition.
The defenders of internalism express that the rationality criteria are the possibility to give and to offer reasons and underlies the notion of justification, while those who defend de externalist position suggest that justification entails the idea of operate (execute) inferential processes of induction and deduction (inductive and deductive reasoning). Now, an important definition is the concept of rationality, for which the position of Stein is adopted; he (quoted by García Campos, 2009) called it the “standard vision of rationality”.
“According to this vision, to be rational means thinking in agreement with the principles of reasoning based on the rules of logics, probability and so on”. Assuming that the standard vision of reasoning is correct, then the principles which we must apply to reason are the normative principles of reasoning” (Stein, quoted by García Campos, 2009, p. 66). Therefore, in this context the rationality is the primary criterion to evaluate the human behavior using the rules of logics, mathematics, probability and decision theory. Moreover, another definition of rationality exists, named “consequentialist view” of rationality; this one refers that the rationality is subject to the achievement of certain results proposed in advance, for which it is necessary to know the obtained results for an assessment of the rationality of an action.
The relationships between S1 and S2 and the forms of justification and rationality. Therefore, we can say that rationality (R1) has relationship with the previously before mentioned consequentialist vision, while rationality (R2) seems adjusted to the standard vision of rationality previously defined; then, it can be expected that (accepting that two kinds of rationality exists) for certain problems it is possible to offer an answer that while for R1 is desirable and rational, not necessarily will verify this condition under the postulates of rationality (2) and vice versa. Let´s remember that the concept of rationality (R1) means that it is in accordance with certain principles indicating the response to an event. The answer is esteemed as correct because it complies with the requirements of beliefs that are not necessarily verifiable from the before mentioned standard point of view, because it is not a consequence of a ruled reasoning; instead, if the response system correspond to the rationality 2, the process for decision making becomes responsible for validating the response. S1 is a system without access to the processes, but one that has knowledge of the outcomes, whose rationality is implied and instrumental into a genetic level.
Their justification relies in basic beliefs that do not require demonstration (axioms and postulates). It is consequentialist-evolutionist. The dual model explains that the human brain responds to a stimulus with one of the two systems named S1 and S2. Meanwhile, each system must be admitted by means of a rationality mechanism conferring confidence to the response. Also, both systems must be validated by means of appropriate justifications. S2 signifies a slower and difficult reasoning procedure, requiring will and decision of the person to operate and a normative frame indicating which are the adequate procedures to find the correct answer to different stimulus. It usually acts according to the standard notion of rationality or another standard known beforehand, applies the rules of logics, mathematics, probability and decision theory; it finds justification in explicit models, because the process is known and validated; and, too, receipts the output due to the fact that it is the exit of an accepted system.
The main difference observable between human beings and other species is the ability to memorize, essential requirement to learn. Edgar Dale represents into a figure the ability of human beings to retain and memorize, according to the activity involved. Therefore, the strategy to be applied to achieve learning will depend on each didactic unit; to start with an area or problem is something manageable, but it is possible that we need to deal with a lot of interrelated activities or problems. More on Dale´s cone: the individuals GCBF ♦ Vol. 11 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2016 ♦ ISSN 1941-9589 ONLINE & ISSN 2168-0612 USB Flash Drive 163 Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings ♦ Volume 11 ♦ Number 1 learn better when they interact with other individuals, including when that intervention is dramatized … and with the exterior milieu in an active attitude, than whit a passive attitude. With regard to groups: their learning ameliorates when each member cooperate to achieve common objectives and posses a common vision. The organization, as a global and integral system, learns by having feedback with the environment and manages to anticipate future changes.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The human being is born in the bosom of a certain society having determinate customs that he absorbed since his birth; customs are very strong, they determines him for the rest of his life. A person receives a social, cultural and economic frame of reference that – like an iceberg – will stay secret, becoming manifest in certain situations or when required by an extraordinary event. By means of socialization processes and formal and informal education the human will add models of troubleshooting, from S1 to S2 to give quick answers – almost always correct – to complex problems. Therefore, the interpretation of the economic and social reality will substantiate the answer which will be duly justified by appropriate criteria, according to the type of rationality utilized. The cycle of formal education begins with schooling by means of the acquisition of new knowledge requiring effort of the intellect. For example, for reading S2 must actively participate to “bring to mind” a set of symbols and to initiate the assembly of the puzzle of their conjunctions. Then is when children begin to use words, but they do not understand o know what they have read because they have not yet passed to S1 the reading process and, therefore, according to Kahneman (2003) lacking the sufficient aptitude to realize two cognitive activities (requiring effort) simultaneously then they cannot understand what they read. The way for contents comprehension will begin only whit the reading procedure is transferred to S1 and the child realizes this process without effort. We recognize an identical path for the following stages of schooling and contents of formal education and learning of jobs.
In the education process the formalization of behavior occurs and adequate tools are acquired leading to problems resolution; the interpretation of the reality will take from the sum of beliefs those that support justified solutions in complex and unknown environments. Simon´s bounded rationality is a base for the construction of forms of decision making at any level (professor or student), slanted by their system of beliefs, values and principles, innate and acquired. The cognition systems allow that the use of the new tools provided by ICT´s to resolve difficult problems can be separated in two, in order not to exhaust the brain capacity: on one hand, resolution of simple mathematical schemes without major implications (stores in S1) and, as a second process, incorporate the academic content through S2. This not means that the tool signifies an extraordinary use of the computational capacity defined by Simon.
The incorporation of simple schemes into the teaching process allows that the students acquire concepts, according to their learning strategies technologically advanced (in comparison with the docent background). The use of new technologies is a must for teachers today and also the utilization of social networks to communicate with their students and to transmit teachings. At high levels of education (specialization and masters) the students (yet practicing professionals) are instructed to work with models that have their justification in programs according to their understanding of rationality, as stated by the standard model. The environment of excellence of academic cloisters facilitates beliefs in S1 levels, when it turns out complex to interpret conceptually his developments; then is when the force of imitation allows the application of complex models apprehended and lodged in S1 to resolve other kind of problems.
However there are elements justifying their use, either due to the high notability or by its accessibility.
The universities are faced with the challenge to actualize their methods, articulate their careers and promote common actions between teachers and students as part of the challenges whose origin is the EEES (“Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior, European Space of Higher Education”); this space operates as guide for GCBF ♦ Vol. 11 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2016 ♦ ISSN 1941-9589 ONLINE & ISSN 2168-0612 USB Flash Drive 164 Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings ♦ Volume 11 ♦ Number 1 American universities trying to be at the forefront of higher education. The professor attitude must change;
today the access to knowledge is collaborative, not only among professors, but between students and teachers; the resources have changed and will change from now on. Chalk and blackboard seem to be things of a distant past; now, teaching via WEB also in the classroom with presence of the professor, this latter explaining with the help of information received via Internet by his students is a reality. And, of course, the use of blogs and other tools are mandatory to obtain the accompaniment of the student on his way to the discovery of knowledge (understood as the acquisition of skills and competences) until the time of his graduation.
Agulló Tomás, Esteban (2005) “Reseña de “Psicología Social, Perspectivas Psicológicas y Sociológicas” de José Luis Álvaro y Alicia Garrido”, Psicothema, año/vol. 17, número 001, pp. 177-178, Universidad de Oviedo, España. ISSN 1886-144X.
Alcoba, J. (2013). Organización de los métodos de enseñanza en función de las finalidades educativas: el alineamiento curricular en Educación Superior. Profesorado, 17(3), 241-255.
Batle, R. (2013). El Aprendizaje-Servicio en España: El contagio de una revolución pedagógica necesaria.
Becerra, Sebastián; Chaz Sardi, María; El Alabi, Emilio; Fidami, Eduardo; Martino, Sofía (2011) “Toma de decisiones y sesgos de comportamiento: alguna evidencia experimental”, Universidad Nacional del Sur, República Argentina.
Bernardo, J. y Calderero, J.F. (2000). Aprendo a investigar en educación. Madrid: Rialp. Bisquerra, R.
(1996).Bolívar, A. (2008). El discurso de las competencias en España: educación básica y educación superior. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, número monográfico 2.
Brown, D. M. (2001). Puling in together: A method for developing service-learning and community partnerships based in critical pedagogy. National Service Fellow Research. Recuperado de https://www.nationalserviceresources.gov/files/r2087-pulling-it-together.pdf Cortada de Kohan, Nuria (2008) “Los sesgos cognitivos en la toma de decisiones” International Journals of Psychological Research, Vol. 1, Nº 1, pp. 68-73, Medellín, Colombia.
De Miguel, M. (2005a). Cambio de paradigma metodológico en la Educación Superior. Exigencias que conlleva. Cuadernos de Integración Europea, 2, 16-27.
De Miguel, M. (2005b). Modalidades de enseñanza centradas en el desarrollo de competencias.
Orientaciones para promover el cambio en el marco del EEES. Oviedo: Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de Oviedo.
De Miguel, M. (2006). Metodologías de enseñanza y aprendizaje para el desarrollo de competencias.
Orientaciones para el profesorado universitario ante el espacio europeo de educación superior. Madrid:
Denegri Coria, Marianela (s/d) Introducción a la psicología económica, Psicom Editores, Bogotá, Colombia.
GCBF ♦ Vol. 11 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2016 ♦ ISSN 1941-9589 ONLINE & ISSN 2168-0612 USB Flash Drive 165 Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings ♦ Volume 11 ♦ Number 1 Fernández Christlieb, Pablo (2005) “Los dos lenguajes de las dos psicologías de lo social”, Athenea Digital, Nº 8, otoño de 2005, disponible en http://antalya.uab.es/athenea/num8/sfernandez.pd García-Campos, Jonatan (2008) “Psicología cognitiva del razonamiento. Algunas expectativas y retos”, Ludus Vitalis, Vol. XVI, núm. 29, pp. 173-176, México.
García-Campos, Jonatan (2009) “Justificación y racionalidad desde la teoría dual del razonamiento”, Ideas y Valores, Nº 139, pp.61-86; Bogotá, Colombia.
Kahneman, Daniel; Knetsch, jack y Thaler, Richard (1991) “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 5, Nº 1, pp. 193-206, EEUU.
Kahneman, Daniel (2003) “Mapas de racionalidad limitada: psicología para una economía conductual”, Revista Asturiana de Economía, RAE Nº 23, España.
López Gómez, Daniel y Sánchez-Criado, Tomás (2006) “La recuperación de la figura de Gabriel Tarde”,
Página web consultada el [20, 01, 2013]. Disponible web en:
http://www.aibr.org/socios/tomassanchezcriado/inv/tarde2006.pdf López Parra, Hiader (2008) “Especialización en intervenciones psicosociales, Módulo Epistemología de la psicología social”, Fundación Universitaria Luis Amigó, Facultad de Psicología, Medellín, Colombia.