tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34592362.post7313807423301965208..comments2024-01-13T07:04:29.167-05:00Comments on Kapp Notes: Definition: ConstructivismKarl Kapphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10586071112339563727noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34592362.post-23096751924301860672009-01-29T08:37:00.000-05:002009-01-29T08:37:00.000-05:00thanks ur information Small business webs...thanks ur information <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.creativewebsitedesigner.com" REL="nofollow"> Small business <BR/>website design</A> <A HREF="http://www.creativewebsitedesigner.com" REL="nofollow"> Small business web site design</A> <A HREF="http://www.creativewebsitedesigner.com" REL="nofollow"> small business web designer </A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34592362.post-85762034153245709382009-01-29T08:28:00.000-05:002009-01-29T08:28:00.000-05:00good postgood postAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34592362.post-9941167626407956192007-01-07T23:07:00.000-05:002007-01-07T23:07:00.000-05:00Bill,
A good point and, I think, in some ways the...Bill,<br /><br />A good point and, I think, in some ways the changes in schools are going to be driven by new technology tools that the students are going to bring with them...the gadgets, games and gizmos that we think of as toys and trinkets. On the otherside, I hope industry will realize that leaving school funding up to the public sector will not be effective until public officials understand why funding changes in schools is critical to the future success of a region, state or even country.<br /><br />The new educational models will be developed by trial and error by teachers (like yourself) and others who "experiment" with the various schools of thought and see what works. Things are going a little fast to spend years and years working on an academic theory.Karl Kapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10586071112339563727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34592362.post-31148340473628935282007-01-05T23:08:00.000-05:002007-01-05T23:08:00.000-05:00hi karl,
Just to clarify my point of view in res...hi karl, <br /><br />Just to clarify my point of view in response to your question. Sorry, but I probably won't be very helpful. I agree with the sort of thing you have been saying in response to myself and Tony Forster as to where the various learning theories fit wrt developing instructional design. <br /><br />My current perspective is to try to look at a broader picture. I think we're entering a period of possibly dramatic social and educational change, or at least, I hope so. Many people do see School as inadequate in its present form. <br /><br />I'm a teacher, I'm in a classroom, I know how teachers think and that thinking is inevitably tied to the necessities of the classroom environment in certain ways. There are others developing educational programs from outside the classroom and their thinking is often very different, eg. <a href='http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/rogerSchank'> Roger Schank </a>, is a good example. Some of his critiques of School are very biting, satirical and possibly true. I'm thinking about the question of how can Schools change (they need to change dramatically) if teachers thinking is classroom bound. Who will lead that change? What ideas and methods will create that change?Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34592362.post-88411419101066226132007-01-04T10:21:00.000-05:002007-01-04T10:21:00.000-05:00Stephen--perhaps I should ask to what school of th...Stephen--perhaps I should ask to what school of thought do you subscribe when it comes to educational theory?<br /><br />Bill--I agree my oversight on not mentioning Piaget and Papert. <br /><br />To both--Any ideas on how an instructional designer should operationalize some of these concepts? <br /><br />Thanks for the comments and continued discussionKarl Kapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10586071112339563727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34592362.post-79506530450936237882007-01-02T19:38:00.000-05:002007-01-02T19:38:00.000-05:00In response to Stephen's comment:
Minsky's (Paper...In response to Stephen's comment:<br /><br />Minsky's (Papert and Minsky worked collaborated at MIT on AI research) approach to AI has been categorised as symbolic AI (logical reasoning about data) and criticised by Rodney Brooks for blocking the situated and embodied approach<br /><br />I don't think Minsky could be said to have added a homunculus though<br /><br />Enactivism (embodied cognition)is a newer approach that has grown out of this dialogue. I'm developing pages on <a href='http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/AI_behaviour'> Brooks </a> and <a href='http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/enactivism'> enactivism </a> at the learning evolves wiki<br /><br />Edge optimist, <a href='http://edge.org/q2007/q07_2.html#devlin'> Keith Devlin </a> thinks we can teach maths more successfully using immersive 3D environments:<br />"We have grown so accustomed to the fact that for over two thousand years, mathematics had to be communicated, learned, and carried out through written symbols, that we may have lost sight of the fact that mathematics is no more about symbols than music is about musical notation. In both cases, specially developed, highly abstract, stylized notations enable us to capture on a page certain patterns of the mind, but in both cases what is actually captured in symbols is a dreadfully meager representation of the real thing, meaningful only to those who master the arcane notation and are able to recreate from the symbols the often profound beauty they represent. Never before in the history of mathematics have we had a technology that is ideally suited to representing and communicating basic mathematics. But now, with the development of manufactured, immersive, 3D environments, we do."Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34592362.post-33732399493818776762007-01-02T19:19:00.000-05:002007-01-02T19:19:00.000-05:00hi karl,
I think in discussing constructivism its...hi karl,<br /><br />I think in discussing constructivism its necessary to mention both Piaget and Papert<br /><br />Constructionism (N rather than V) was papert's extension from piaget. Constructionism is morphing constructivism with the word construction, meaning building things in the world to accelerate the internal process that Piaget was attempting to describe. Hence Papert helped develop the logo programming language (starting with turtle geometry), LEGO TClogo (controlling LEGO constructions using logo) and ISDP (Instructional Software Design Project) (with Idit Harel) as ways to promote learning. I have articles about <a href='http://www.users.on.net/~billkerr/a/papert.htm'> Papert </a> and <a href='http://www.users.on.net/~billkerr/a/isdp.htm'> ISDP </a> on my website btw<br /><br />Open ended discovery learning has been criticised for being too, well, open ended. Papert's approach is to minimise instruction by setting up environments containing rich "objects to think with" (eg. logo). There is guidance but it is built into the environment as much as possible.Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34592362.post-68590871565622286572007-01-02T17:27:00.000-05:002007-01-02T17:27:00.000-05:00Ah - but I consider constructivism to be a type of...Ah - but I consider constructivism to be a type of cognitivism, and not a response to it.<br /><br />Look at the constructivist paradigm, its writings and slogans - things like "making meaning" and it becomes clear that they're still working with the physical symbol system hypothesis. The best that can be said for some of them is that they've added a homonculus to the process.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.com