Glenn Ralston (gralston@in.net)
Sun, 06 Jun 1999 18:00:46 -0500
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 18:00:46 -0500 From: Glenn Ralston <gralston@in.net> Subject: Re: Pedagogy or Learning?
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the most recent reference on IFETS for pedagogy's underlayment to
learning theory.
I have been tracking similar threads for awhile in the hope of discovering a
discussion that directly linked "pedagogical principles" to distance or
asynchronous learning.
Can you suggest pointers here?
The following are a couple of my earlier thoughts on this.
"The Art and Science of Education: Pedagogy Includes Technology" ad loc. 6 June
99:
<http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/letters/1998-11.asp#ralston>
"There is No Pedagogical Deficit..." ad loc. 6 June 99:
<http://chronicle.com/colloquy/98/skeptics/31.htm>
Glenn Ralston
Muhammad Betz wrote:
> List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
> Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lastly, I continue to be unsure of contributors who suggest
> "Constructivism" as a method... when it is a theory. Any teaching method
> is "constructivist" if you adopt the point of view that constructivism is
> the way humans come to know. Martin Owen
>
> Hello IEFTS'ers:
> Thanks to Martin Owen for contribution to the origins of Constructivism, as
> a psychological theory. Yet his contribution accentuates a problem one
> often encounters when reading and contributing to IEFTS, i.e., the confusion
> of which aspect of a topic is really being discussed: the theoretical or the
> pragmatic, a clinical setting or a field-based setting, a Piaget or a
> Papert. [One recalls that Piaget studied under Henri Bergson (Philosopher)
> who studied under Claude Bernard (Physiologist). Aristotle also studied
> under Plato, yet their dissimilarities are well known.]
>
> If there is a point to be made here, it seems to relate to Owen's the
> statement, "Any teaching method is constructivist, if you adopt the point of
> view that constructivism is the way humans come to know." The argument (in
> a constructive sense) that has been evidenced in this Forum, relates to
> instructional techniques based on either so-called constructivist or
> behaviorist approaches.
>
> In the context of learning theory, the dichotomy as I have come to know it,
> polarizes cognitive versus behavioral premises. The behavioral premise is
> that learning takes place as the result of the manipulation of
> external/physical antecedents, reinforcers, and punishments, while the
> cognitive premise is that learning takes place when the learner manipulates
> sense and data to form mental constructs, such as schemas, or a gestalt, if
> you will.
>
> Those of us who argue against the proponents of an EXCLUSIVE type of
> pedagogy, often called constructivist, which is open-ended,
> inquiry-oriented, and learner driven are only trying to make the point,
> implied by Owen's remark, that a pedagogy need not be Constructivist for
> cognitive, constructive learning to take place.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Muhammad Betz, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Southeastern Oklahoma State University
> Durant, OK
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu 10 Jun 1999 - 00:38:45 MEST